From: Jim Douglas (jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-20 02:54:39
David Abrahams wrote:
> Beth Jacobson <bethj_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>
>>I like your list. It's a novel way of grouping the libraries compared to
>>both mine and the existing categories, and I wonder if it might be worth
>>including as its own page, but it's not really what I'm trying to do
>>here. I've avoided the word "selling", but this is really what the page
>>is about. I'm not trying to sell the libraries (I think they can sell
>>themselves), but I am trying to sell people on the idea that it's worth
>>their time to read more about them.
>
> I agree that your page does that better than prior efforts.
Seconded...
> But I don't think we can afford to have two categorized pages,
My view is that the more categorisations the better. Beth's page deals
with a scale of simple<->complex or concrete<->abstract. This one is
classified by usage type. Both are valid and useful.
The more signs we can post that say "Entrance", "Way In" or even
"Ingress" the better (IMHO).
Jim