- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:37:24 -0600
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Cc: "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr, www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 13:43 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > I wish there were language comparisons that grounded this > principle in examples. The draft gives a number of examples, no? "A bug-free regular expression processor, for example, is by definition free of many security exposures that are inherent in the more general runtime one might use for a language like C++." "HTML for example, is intentionally designed not to be a full programming language ..." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html > To repeat from XML-Dev: > > When selecting a language, how does one know when it has the 'least power'? > > o Is Assembler less or more powerful than C? > > o Is C less or more powerful than C++? > > o Is Lisp less or more powerful than Prolog? Those are all turing-complete; equally expressive. > o Is RDF less or more powerful than Conceptual Graphs? Pretty close... I think CGs have universal quantification where RDF does not; I'd have to double-check. > o Are Conceptual Graphs more or less powerful than Topic Maps? My repeated attempts to ask that Topic Maps be specified w.r.t. traditional structures so that I could make such a comparison have yielded unsatisfactory results. I don't know what the expressive capability of Topic Maps is. > o Are DTDs less or more powerful than Schematron? Schematron is turing-complete, as I understand. DTDs are not. > A principle or axiom is of no value without the rules for applying it. > At least some examples? > > len -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 20:38:40 UTC