On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, [UTF-8] Rickard Ă–berg wrote: Man, you REALLY need to get rid of that wacky "o" you use. :) :) :) *duck* *run* *dodge* *splat!* :)
> >>Joseph Ottinger wrote: > > I'll wait for more on this. I really don't like the idea of webwork > > focusing more on doing it "correctly" than "doing it" - webwork's trivial > > to use and very clear once you grok it's mindset. > > You DON'T want it to do it "correctly"?! If there's a more general way > to do "side-effects" and chaining happens to fit in there, and is also > easy to implement (frameworkwise and appwise), then why not? Well, note the quotes I used. "Correctness" can be taken a lot of ways. What I was referring to was buzzword-compatible correctness, where the comp sci grads are happy applying all of their new-found knowledge in ways that end up making the product less usable. Between usability and "correctness," I'll take usability. This is sort of why I dislike the current xwork.xml structure - it's "correct" but unusable. (Well, it's usable, but *I* wouldn't want to use it.) As far as the validation... as long as the definition is clear, I'm happy. --------------------------------------------------------- Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
