Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65511 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2003 20:25:21 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Oct 2003 20:25:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 95766 invoked by uid 500); 22 Oct 2003 20:25:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 95729 invoked by uid 500); 22 Oct 2003 20:25:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 95716 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2003 20:25:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out001.verizon.net) (206.46.170.140) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Oct 2003 20:25:06 -0000 Received: from verizon.net ([4.40.114.87]) by out001.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20031022202511.SNMG29543.out001.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:25:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3F96E799.4040401@verizon.net> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:24:57 -0700 From: Christopher Oliver User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Thoughts on Woody ... References: <009001c39884$16dbe280$1e01a8c0@WRPO> <3F965A71.7070609@vafer.org> <3F96A17C.60905@verizon.net> <3F96C205.5090704@vafer.org> <3F96C2DE.80205@verizon.net> <3F96D137.1060104@vafer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out001.verizon.net from [4.40.114.87] at Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:25:11 -0500 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sorry, my bad. I just re-read your post (more carefully...) and I now see you had the same solution :) Regards, Chris Torsten Curdt wrote: > Christopher Oliver wrote: > >> No, we're not on the same page :(. Please see the approach taken in >> XMLForm/JXForms and my response to Sylvain's last message. If you >> follow that approach I don't think there's a problem here. > > > Sorry, Dude, I cannot really see why we are not... > Actually I don't see a major difference - just phrased > differently... Anyway > > regards > -- > Torsten > >