- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:21:29 -0600
- To: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Ray, I really wish you would call me, because this thread is becoming a "debate of attrition" where neither of us is really addressing the other's points. For example, I was not talking about the modularity or reuseability of abstract. I said specifically, "the more abstract something is, the less useful". I am refering to utility as accomplishing a feature set. We are losing sight of our goal, which is to find a solution. Not to divert from each other's points. I think we need verbal communication. >>1. FACT: the more abstract something is, the less useful it is in the real >>world. All abstraction has to be comprised to achieve implementation. >>Thus NOTHING is purely abstract. It is all relative. So the useful >>questions are not ABSOLUTE. They are based upon PRIORITIES. These >>priorities should be controlled by the demand for applications (uses) of >>the technology. Eistein proved this. >> >> >I disagree. the more abstract it is, the more reusable it is. -Shelby Moore
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 19:20:45 UTC