Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The point is complexity is a perception. Given any point of view, and level of detail, one can simplify or complexify. The language is precise and for that reason, obscure unless one is well-trained. Madeleine Sparks and Charles Goldfarb both made me face up to the differences of audiences for given technical resources. Simon is in the business of explaining this stuff. I also live on the kindness of xml.com. Otherwise, I have to put down the RFP, go to the spec, read slowly and very carefully rather than work some nicely put together examples from the xml.com authors. If a good GUI hides a complex process, is that a bad thing? If it hides unnecessary complexity, it isn't the fault of the GUI. We should strive to simplify but should we do that at the cost of precision? There isn't a single answer that satisfies. There is only a goal which informs local process. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@a...] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:31 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: Gavin Thomas Nicol; xml-dev Subject: RE: ZDNet Schema article,and hiding complexity within user-friend lyproducts At 2001-04-24 14:51, Bullard, Claude L \(Len\) wrote: >Or that stuff like this is scary reading on the face of it... > >"A precise formulation of this constraint can also be offered in terms of >operations on finite-state automaton: ... >More money for Simon StL in his next book if he can condense that >down to something understandable. That really will be hiding the >complexity. Er, guys -- this is not more complex than the rules we all know and love to hate from ISO 8879 or the XML spec. It's just a bit more brutally honest about the specifics. (ISO 8879 describes the rule fully but eccentrically, in ways that have to be translated painfully into FSA terms for people who think in FSA terms, and the XML spec just waves its hands and says "you know what we mean, right?") -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen W3C
|
