I agree with Mike on both points.
On 7/14/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/14/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> moving s:form has nothing to do with RI compatibility - we remain as
> compatible as before.
>
> So let me reopen the vote, s:form is well documented (example wouldn't
> help much), and it should be ok to move it to tomahawk.
Has s:form been tested with the RI yet? (It's one of our promotion
requirements.)
Also, I think an example should still be provided even if it's trivial
right now.
Future expansion on the s:form tag may not be trivial.
