[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xml-bin] :-(
- From: Al Snell <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:30:19 +0100 (BST)
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> > Didn't really capture our side of the argument, it seems...
> Filtering out all opposing arguments as not worth printing seems a bit
> unfair. There's a lot of "kill the solution before it matures" going on
> here. On the other hand, I have no problem with people asking for
> evidence that it's a better method. It's just a hypothesis waiting to
> be properly tested. And no, my solution hasn't been tested yet.
Mine neither. However, it will be trivial to find real world examples that
really show binXML in a good light... not choosing an unfair comparison,
but just pointing out that the use cases many XML people work with day to
day (actual document processing) aren't greatly in need of binary
representations, but other equally valid environments are :-)
> No matter, the problem I'm solving isn't a figment of my imagination,
> and my solution is rapidly graduating from that realm. It may very well
> be too expensive to be worth it in more cases than I hope, but I'm not
> afraid to find out.
That's the spirit. Even if a research project fails, at least the fact
that it failed and the results it found along the way are still very
valuable pieces of information. In fact, you can probably say that there
is no such thing as a failed research project.
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software