- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:29:05 +0100
- To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Kevin Braun" <kbraun@obj-sys.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Original Message From: "Noah Mendelsohn" > Furthermore, immediately under that guidance, the Finding goes on to say: > > "In aiming for simplicity, one must of course go far enough but not too > far. The language you choose must be powerful enough to successfully solve > your problem, and indeed, complexity and lack of clarity can easily result > from clumsy efforts to patch around use of a language that is too limited. > Furthermore, the suggestion to use less powerful languages must in > practice be weighed against other factors. Perhaps the more powerful > language is a standard and the less powerful language not, or perhaps the > use of simple idioms in a powerful language makes it practical to use the > powerful languages without unduly obscuring the information conveyed (see > 3 Scalable language families). Overall, the Web benefits when less > powerful languages can be successfully applied. " > > Maybe I'm too close to this one, but that seems pretty balanced and > appropriate to me. The clarifying text does seem to change it from a rule to a guideline! I'm thinking that static data can be represented using XML, or (arguably) less powerful JSON, or even less powerful .ini file format or even CSV. But to me it seems a world using all four of those representations is actually more complicated than just using XML. Maybe a "Rule of Not Over Complicating" would be better! Pete Cordell Codalogic Ltd Twitter: http://twitter.com/petecordell Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes. Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com for more info
Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 08:29:37 UTC