|
Kendall,
I certainly have no issue with using your full name, sorry if it bothered you that I didn't do that at first.
*self-naming*
That's fine by me. I agree it's not the biggest benefit, but it is one benefit, and one people do not want to lose. Data outlives applications, and those little labels can be terribly useful in such cases.
*mobile units*
The number of mobile units in the world is several times that the number of desktop computers. Yes, they do keep getting more powerful, but no that is not sufficient to solve performance issues. Other factors, such as batteries for instance, don't follow Moore's law by any margin. The more CPU you use, the more battery you burn.
We'd all like to see those problems go away, but wishing them gone doesn't do much.
*the Web per se*
The point I'm making is that you're dismissing a large amount of terminals -- again, more than there are desktops -- with a wave of the hand as "a subset of a subset" and not being the real Web.
Well, they're on the real Web, and there are lots of it. That is just simple factual inadequacy.
*ad hoc approaches*
They have been tested for several years now. They work. But they cause no end of interoperability problems, and they've already kept some technologies from being integrated with one another. It is well time that all those that have been doing that got together for a chat.
I've been working on a way to render the need for domain-specific encoders (often done as codecs in a generic format) pretty much disappear. That's the sort of issue that can be solved in a single place, with all interested parties, much better than vertically where one knows it will fail to be reused by others.
*gzip*
Gzip does not solve the issues, full stop. Where it does, it's used. For instance, SVG mandates its support and people use it when it works. However, when you get mobile, mapping, broadcasting, elearning people coming to you saying that it isn't enough for SVG -- even though gzip'd SVG documents are on average smaller than SWF files implementing the same functionality -- well maybe at some point it's worth paying attention. They've tried gzip, it doesn't cut it for them.
*lock-in concerns*
Well, surely, in that case one should rejoy to see that sort of activity happen within the W3C rather than a variety of other places!
*dynamic update and random access*
What I point out there is that those are oft-cited requirements, which put together with size and speed makes a total of four. I believe that they've been mentionned a sufficient number of times on lists you subscribe to that I'd have hoped you'd have thought about it. It's not very pleasant to see someone take a subset of the requirements you have, point at another solution, and declare victory.
I don't think four requirements qualifies as opening a Pandora box. In my position paper, in order to encompass as much of the field as possible I've listed two or three others, but they're more marginal.
*first one to ask for proof*
In this discussion. On this page. You posted first :) I have vaguely heard of that "science" thing which you mention.
*ERH's claims*
There's a difference between just repeating someone's claims and making them almost the sole meat of a section called "What do XML Developers Say?" when those comments are from a single developer, half of which unfounded, the other half blatant FUD. It's your fault if I've been used to more fairness and even-handedness from the Deviant before.
I've taken those claims up with him, on xml-dev, two weeks ago. I have yet to receive an answer.
|
Previous Message
Up
