>I didn't put 100%, I put just 100, 100 pixels. :P I know and I knew you were going to call me on that but my over the top approach didn't work as well with 100 pixels.
>But I get what you're saying, however, I still think that easing the migration >path is a worthy endeavor. I'm not saying we need a class for every possible >composition, that's ridiculous. But I think we can raise the barrier to entry >>for some MX users. You've stated several times many companies are still on >MX, I've talked to many companies as well that have tried to do the migration >from MX to Spark. The biggest pain point I commonly heard was the >unclear >path of migration for some of their components. Its not like based on the list >I'm proposing for hundreds of new components, its but a small handful of >convenience classes, some of which already exist such as s:HGroup >and >s:VGroup. I know. For consistency though, I actually argued against VGroup and HGroup too :) We see how that went. Mike
