|
--Rather than defining idea, let us define fluff (the absence of idea)...Several spots of fluff I think. Too many words I think...---
Gee, since you're seriously pursuing the question here, publicly, I will respond in kind. There are, of course, some sentences of setup and teardown in every good column, and while you seem not to enjoy my way of doing that, it isn't fluff or misleading. If you were to try writing a weekly column, you might find that a certain kind of easy, personal rapport with one's audience is a good thing.
--"Frankly, I think that's just the bare minimum of doing good research and engineering." Right you are. I was hoping that you would do some of it.--
I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd requirement of a weekly column, of any kind, much less of the XML-Deviant. Perhaps you don't realize but the XML-Deviant column is supposed to survey and report on conversations of general interest in and to the XML developer community.
Second, and more crucially, the obligation to back up performance claims with data rests with the person who's making the claims. I am *not* one of the people who's agitating for the W3C to define a general compression scheme or a domain-specific one. I don't have any obligation to do research and engineering around an approach I don't find interesting or useful. (Further, I might add, except for pretty rare exceptions, this kind of work is typically done in a funded environment (university, R&D lab, venture-cap backed startup...), *not* by technical press columnists.)
--So, is this pure noise, or is there some signal?--
So, you should attend the workshop, the announcement (and some of the issues) of which I reported on in my column. I don't find this to be a pressing issue; but then, as my respondents have informed, me I'm obviously not very bright! :>
|
Previous Message
Up
