> it is not 100% factually incorrect. > :) True, my wording was too harsh for sure, I retract "100%". But my point was that the blog post wording originally was such that it very much made it sound like FalconJS was going to live or die based solely on Apache Flex team, whereas in reality at this point in time only Adobe has anything at all to do with FalconJS ever seeing the light of day. And the updated wording still partially sounded the same.
> This is a developer's blog. It is not an official statement. For better or worse, that blog post is the first link on google when searching for FalconJS, and I can't find anything more official from Adobe, and Adobe is still in control of the code. I'd say that's as official a source as there is, and it's more official than anything posted on an Apache Flex wiki until the code actually lives in Apache Flex.
