<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.1">
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
Definitely.<BR>
<BR>
We discussed the potential issues that might arise from this at our meeting at JSFSummit - we agreed it's worth fighting for, but acknowledge that there may come a time where we have (misguided ;) legal opposition. The current stance is, "we're trying to benefit the JSF community, which benefits SUN, so lets try it and see what happens." <BR>
<BR>
Ed, please correct me if I've mis-spoken.<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<BR>
---<BR>
Lincoln Baxter, III<BR>
<A HREF="http://ocpsoft.com">http://ocpsoft.com</A><BR>
<A HREF="http://scrumshark.com">http://scrumshark.com</A><BR>
"Keep it Simple" <BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:21 -0600, Jason Lee wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
>From the hip, I'm not sure The Powers That Be at Sun are going to like the JSF Home Page point to javaserverfaces.org and not the Sun page. Not sure how best to handle that, though.<BR>
<BR>
On 12/16/09 6:19 PM, Lincoln Baxter III wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I've taken the liberty of updating the JSF page on <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaServer_Faces">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaServer_Faces</A> <BR>
<BR>
I don't know how many of you have read it, but it was atrocious: horrible grammar, entire paragraphs that added almost no value (or should have been included in a section for "details nobody needs to know,") and generally too much text that said too little.<BR>
<BR>
Notably, I removed the comparison to other frameworks because it was rather uninformative (save the .net version) These features can be pulled back in, if we deem them to be accurate and beneficial to the audience (which on wikipedia, should be considered, "interested academics and business researchers",) so such a comparison may be valuable, but I assert that we should re-evaluate the manner in which is it done. The focus should be on JSF, not the other frameworks. (This section was almost as long as the rest of the article.)<BR>
<BR>
I've moved the focus from JSF1 to JSF2, while still keeping some references to JSF1 functionality. JSF2 is the new standard, and I've made that clear. <BR>
<BR>
Please feel free to add/update - it is our responsibility as the experts to make sure that the correct knowledge is on here. My focus is on clarity and understanding, but if someone more technical wants to elaborate on anything I've done, or add new information, go ahead, and I'll try to make sure it lays out well and flows intuitively.<BR>
<BR>
You can see all my changes here:<BR>
<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JavaServer_Faces&action=historysubmit&diff=332153215&oldid=332141364">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JavaServer_Faces&action=historysubmit&diff=332153215&oldid=332141364</A><BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<BR>
---<BR>
Lincoln Baxter, III<BR>
<A HREF="http://ocpsoft.com">http://ocpsoft.com</A><BR>
<A HREF="http://scrumshark.com">http://scrumshark.com</A><BR>
"Keep it Simple" <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
--
Jason Lee, SCJP
President, Oklahoma City Java Users Group
Senior Java Developer, Sun Microsystems
<A HREF="http://blogs.steeplesoft.com">http://blogs.steeplesoft.com</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>