- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:07:53 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:35 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote: > "Nowadays we have to appreciate the reasons for picking not the most > powerful solution but the least powerful. The reason for this is that > the less powerful the language, the more you can do with the data > stored > in that language." > > The spectacle of initially and deliberately weak languages that > have had > to have extra expressive power bolted on is so very common, and > flies in > the face of this advice, that I wonder if this principle is > applicable. In the context of the WWW it is. One of the largish issues people have to deal with is manipulating data. If you put too much power into the language, it becomes impossible to manipulate the data directly. Web templating languages and AJAX are good examples of this: in both cases it is possible, and indeed common, for people to produce data which, for the most part, cannot be processed by automated means. This means that things like aural gateways/text based browsers become almost impossible to implement in the general case. FWIW. One of the goals of putting XML on the web was to give a rich means for description (declarative programming) thereby reducing the need for procedural programming. For example, a lot of the stuff done in DHTML/AJAX (dropdown menus etc.) could have been done by providing a richer, but still declarative model. In that case, something as rich as a sophisticated AJAX application could also be made available in a form optimised for blind users with little work on the part of the site developer. As it is now, developing "scalable" web applications can be, at best, complicated.
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 16:08:20 UTC