- From: Stephen van Egmond <svanegmond@tinyplanet.ca>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:05:54 -0500
- To: "Cohen, Aaron M" <aaron.m.cohen@intel.com>
- Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Cohen, Aaron M (aaron.m.cohen@intel.com) wrote: > complexity = (time to implement) + (time to understand specification) > simplicity = 1 / complexity By this metric, the CSS2 specification is outrageously complex and not simple at all. Which, personally, I haven't found. It's nearly 4 years old now, and you might say that support is solidifying now. Keep in mind that we're talking about architecture, and not individual specifications or technologies. In software, software that has low complexity or high simplicity is usually a pleasure to work with: it's easy to improve, refine, and explore. If some software modules need to be tossed, it's not a problem. In the web architecture area, substitute "technology" for "software modules" and you get an idea: are web technologies easy to improve, refine, and explore? If given technologies prove to be nightmares, is it easy? The highly interdependent nature of current XML-related standards tends to decrease their simplicity and boost their complexity. James Clark's commentary before Christmas might provide some interesting insight on that angle - see the other thread. - Steve
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 16:14:19 UTC