On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM, dhtml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 21, 7:50 pm, "Kevin Menard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any chance we can consider this thread a dead horse? > > This thread can stay on topic. It doesn't have to, though. However, > the only major divergence so far is the one you posted, Kevin. Are you > trying to destroy the thread?
You're right, it doesn't have to, and it hasn't. Shamus has multiple ways to solve the problem now and justification for all of them. Let's presume he's intelligent enough to pick the one most suitable for his application. As for me . . . I don't find what I suggested controversial in the least and I can't destroy a thread on a public group, so what I wrote is out there for everyone forever. I really have no clue what you're trying to insinuate. It strikes me that most of your messages are meant to be inflammatory for the sake of it. Which is fine, I'm not one to judge, but I'd just assume go to another group then. > It's clearly going > > nowhere and ongoing discussion has almost nothing to do with the original > > question . . . > > The thread will end when it receives no more replies or it is closed/ > deleted. That is the very definition of it ending, yes. You gents can continue to play out a pissing match that I suspect many have tuned out, or it can end civilly. I suppose it was presumptive of me to ask others to stop posting and for that I apologize. I'll just mute the conversation on my end and it will no longer affect me. > As with any subject, there is always more to be discovered and > discussed. I think there is more to be said, and particularly with > what I wrote here:- > > | That [internal quality would matter only to developers] is true > | because poor internal quality means the code is harder to > | change and modify. > > That is questionable and possibly wrong (yes I wrote it). Pity that > the only response that elicited seemed so braindead. I don't doubt that your question has value, but it's a subjective answer and extends well beyond the bounds of iPhone development. All I've seen thus far is a series of posts where people defend their position without considering the others . . . they've almost degraded into downright attacks (mainly aimed at Jon). Moreover, at no point has anyone seemed to consider the unique properties of the iPhone itself. Principally, the browser and OS are tightly integrated (distributed as a single firmware file) and many apps written for the iPhone are already going to be bound to mobile Safari by mere virtue of using its newly introduced events. Of course, you have hit on the most valid point in the whole thread . . . Shamus hasn't really clarified what he's looking to do, so it's hard to debate the merits of each approach. If, e.g., he needs to know the differences between minor revisions of the OS, this discussion takes on an entirely different shape. -- Kevin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iPhoneWebDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/iphonewebdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
