RE: complexity (was: Re: XHTML and RDF)

> >Perhaps what the W3C should concentrate on is culling back
> >existing standards and simplifying them. Sometimes less is better than 
> >Perhaps it would be best if the W3C suspended activities on new specs to
> >work on simplifying the specs they've already written.
>And how wolud it help? Standards may be too complex for people who
>are not going to implement them (at least such claims were made).
>I did not hear complaints from people implementing them yet.
>Sure you can make standards simple.
>But can you make them simple without leaving ven more freedom for 
>Many problems (CSS in particular) are rooted in spec not being specific 
>enough how
>should one thing or other be implemented.
>Relaxed standartds will result in relaxed implementations, and thats zeroes 
>any value
>of standart by definition.

Simplification doesn't mean less-specific or relaxed. For example Relax NG 
is a much simpler spec that does schema validation, but actually does more 
than XSD in a simpler way. The complexity of the structures themselves is 
what I'm talking about. XSD is unruely.

>I do not develop browsers, I deal with web development, but I see no 
>problems reading specs.
>And I may be mistaken, but I guess "backward compatibility" and problems 
>alike give
>developers much more headache than any standartd.

One of HTML's successes comes from it's relative simplicity of concept. I 
agree of all the specs HTML is probably the simplest. However HTML is only 
one of many, many specs out there. Many of which do not have popular support 
even though the problems they seek to fix for people are real. The problem 
is that I know there are a lot of people, myself included, who find many of 
the W3C standards unruely. And no backwards compatibility, while a headache, 
is not my biggest headache.

Orion Adrian

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now!

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 10:55:26 UTC