- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 01:13:10 +0200
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, public-web-http-desc@w3.org
I think Mark's question over what "risks engendering tight coupling" makes sense as a question. But presumably there's a spectrum between no coupling (i.e. zero communication) and total coupling (they speak a private language). I suspect whether the description are expressed in human or machine language is orthogonal. The argument against tight coupling isn't that it inhibits communication, because by definition this improves communication between the parties that subscribe to the specific contract. But in practice tight coupling is exclusive, anyone that doesn't speak the private language can't come in. But when there's looser coupling, then the information transfer efficiency (no, maybe effectivity?) is reduced by virtue of mustIgnores. The 404 is an ideal contract, but it's no-win. The To: line here has "web" in it, so presumably we're in the context of an enormously distributed environment (I slip into a platitude voice sometimes, sorry). In such an enviroment is it more likely that there will be excessive couplement (!?) or isolation? Dunno, I can't find the right bones. But my gut says that if you want to connect things together: On 9/1/06, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> wrote: > I say yay verily, publish any and all Web Description Languages. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 23:13:24 UTC