> > I tend to disagree. For starters, there are already a lot of > tags that do this, such as Jakarta Taglibs > (http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs/).
The jakarta tags are really focussed on cfml-like or programming functionality; tags like cache, dbtags, logs, mailer, scrape. There's not really anything there (outside of the JSTL tags) that are focussed on presentation. > I think we should focus on table design (everything where > lists need to be displayed). There is a lot left to be desired, among: We have a huge brand. We have approx. 10 committers, and many active contributors, but only a handful of classes. The table tag is important and large, and should continue to be the centerpiece of the library, but there is no reason that we can't accomplish much more. My gut feeling is that although there is still much work to do on the table tag, the main bulk of the work is complete. We don't need 10 developers to just maintain one custom tag. Tabletag 2.0 may have some important differences. We might move the text formatting code into independent tags, and issue a release that removes support for 1.0 deprecated features. But, I think the project should have an explicit agreement on general direction before any tabletag 2.0 planning discussions begin. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ displaytag-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/displaytag-devel
