Diwaker Gupta wrote:
I'm inclined to say that I sense some
personal frustration in this thread.
You are correct, and very wise to highlight it (I'm looking inward, I am
not making assumptions about other posters).
I've snipped loads of stuff that I agree with, but left what I think is
the m
Hi all,
While the discussion in this thread is valuable, I'm not sure it is
sending the right message across. We must try and keep the discussions
analytical, where possible -- I'm inclined to say that I sense some
personal frustration in this thread.
Anyhow, I'm writing just to clear up some con
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:31 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
...
Views are to go into core as soon as they are mature enough.
If they are not mature enough, why are they going then int
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:31 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> >>Tim Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Hi all,
> why are we using views in the x
Steady on please. We have reached a critical point
where we need to integrate some key new features.
That will be difficult. The entwinedness of all things.
Lets not get frustrated.
-David
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 21:17 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
This seems like an odd question. Because views are an integral part
of the TR? The plugin has turne
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Tim Williams wrote:
On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
This seems like an odd question.
Hmmm... yes, it is..
Because views are
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:56 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> > On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
> >
> >
> > This seems like an odd question.
>
> Hmmm... yes, it is..
>
> > Because views
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 21:17 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
> On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
>
> This seems like an odd question. Because views are an integral part
> of the TR? The plugin has turned into a next-ge
Tim Williams wrote:
On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
This seems like an odd question.
Hmmm... yes, it is..
Because views are an integral part
of the TR? The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete
On 9/8/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> why are we using views in the xhtml2 plugin?
This seems like an odd question. Because views are an integral part
of the TR? The plugin has turned into a next-gen forrest complete w/
new internal structure, refined views, integr
11 matches
Mail list logo
