Jamie Orchard-Hays wrote: > I must say I don't understand the desire to have a it all literal or > all ognl between specs and templates. I have thought ognl in specs and > literal in templates made absolutely perfect sense in 3.
Sure, once you understand it, it's easy to remember. As a newbie, I was burned several times by this lack of consistency. What it boils down to is that components defined in the HTML and in the spec are either equivalent or they're not. If they're equivalent, they should have the same semantics. I shouldn't have to worry about changing all my bindings when going from one to the other. It seems the two different defaults is a convenience thing more than anything else. On top of this, it's not even convenient for everyone, just those that fit this "common" usage pattern of where they choose to define their components. I'd rather have the consistency, which makes perfect sense to me. -- Kevin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
