[SVN] r8631 (JavaScript)

[Thomas Aylott - subtleGradient]

On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Michael Sheets wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Thomas Aylott - subtleGradient wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
>> The reason to keep them sorted separately is if there is some  
>> reason why they should not choose one of those syntaxes. In this  
>> particular case it doesn't matter what they choose since they  
>> aren't losing out on any absolutely necessary functionality.
>>
>> I didn't think I was doing anything controversial before either, so  
>> I'm not sure how controversial my plans are. Perhaps I should run  
>> them by the community before I implement anything new.
>
> My only point was that if there isn't any reason anyone would  
> intentionally want one or the other then why provide a obvious  
> option as to confuse people? Need I really go find some nifty  
> acronym to point to that says keep worthless options to a minimum? ;)

KWOtaM ? :D
	(pronounced "quote-um")

I do like your renaming idea.

So: "Embedded Javascript" ?
or maybe: "Internal Javascript"
no, that would sort it above the normal Javascript.

Maybe we use something esoteric like "source.js". that way it still  
makes sense to bundle developers, but it won't confuse regular users.

Especially If there is more than a single syntax renamed that way, it  
would be even more obvious that those are only for people who know  
what they're doing.

	source.js
	source.css.selectors
	source.css.rules

 From a user standpoint those would most likely be completely ignored.

—Thomas Aylott – subtleGradient—