On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Alan Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > *if* all CFML engines were ____FREE____ then yes, this would be a > perfect analogy and yes, there would be a huge drive to then make things > as compatible as possible.
In the C++ world, it didn't matter that some compilers were free and some were commercial offerings - compatibility to a written standard was the important goal. In theory, the specification produced by the CFML Advisory Committee will (eventually) be detailed enough to cover this sort of thing and Brett's test suite could test against the specification, rather than any vendor's documentation. The specification is, after all, intended to be something agreed by the vendors and the community. The first version of the specification - CFML2009, coming this summer we hope - will not be detailed enough to covers some specifics (because it's just more work than we can possibly get done) but it will provide a seed document that we can elaborate on over time, highlighting inconsistencies and deciding what the official "core language" behavior should be. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN CTO, Railo US -- http://getrailo.com/ An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Open BlueDragon Public Mailing List http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en official site @ http://www.openbluedragon.org/ !! save a network - trim replies before posting !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
