- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:21:43 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <52935CF7.1010407@openlinksw.com>
On 11/25/13 8:22 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Hi Kingsley, > >> Are words such as "enables" , "facilitates" etc.. so bad that we can no longer make statements like: >> >> <a/> enables name to address indirection in HTML via URIs? Basically, that it enables exploitation URI serve dually as a document name and a content access address i.e., a hyperlink. >> >> Would REST be less useful if the word "affordance" wasn't engrained in its narrative? > In my talks, I say that enabling is stronger than affording. > You can visit the page without the link, that's enabled by the server. (E.g., you can copy/paste a URI in to the address bar.) > However, the link affords it: it has an actionable property that lets you do it directly (even though you could do it without). > > Best, > > Ruben > > Ruben, Do you have a link to the talk in question? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 14:22:08 UTC