The Rule of Least Power.¶
Berners-Lee, T., & Mendelsohn, N. (2006). The Rule of Least Power.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Principle of Least Privilege
- The rule of least power bounds a mechanism's expressiveness — what it can compute or say.
This sourceStates that the least powerful language suitable for a purpose should be chosen, bounding a mechanism's expressiveness rather than its authority.
SupportedVerified against the work's full text
The W3C TAG finding advises choosing the least powerful suitable language, where power means computational and expressive capability, so it caps what a mechanism can compute or say.
“the least powerful language that's suitable should usually be chosen.”
- The rule of least power bounds a mechanism's expressiveness — what it can compute or say.
- Rule of Least Power (Minimum Sufficient Capability)
- In software and web architecture, it favors declarative HTML and CSS over Turing-complete JavaScript when both suffice, because declarative artifacts can be indexed, transformed, and reasoned about by other tools, and it favors regular expressions over context-free grammars over general parsers when the input fits.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The Finding supports preferring declarative HTML/CSS to Turing-complete JavaScript for analyzability, but says nothing about a regex over context-free grammar over general parser ordering.
“Similarly, CSS is a declarative styling language that is easily analyzed.”
- In software and web architecture, it favors declarative HTML and CSS over Turing-complete JavaScript when both suffice, because declarative artifacts can be indexed, transformed, and reasoned about by other tools, and it favors regular expressions over context-free grammars over general parsers when the input fits.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:29de34e69132 · see in the full table