- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 15:48:55 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
BTW, in case you didn't know, the extra whitespace that gets inserted in many of your long subject lines scores big-time spam points by spamassassin. On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 03:21:06PM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote: > I'm torn between wanting the WSA to be consistent with the webarch, and > wanting the WSA constraints to be meaningful. If anything with identity is > "on the web" that excludes essentially nothing (Dan Connolly's car is > supposedly "on the Web" because he has assigned it a URI in a domain he > controls). Right. > As several people noted on the telcon yesterday, an architecture > without constraints is not an architecture. Agreed, but are you suggesting that being able to identify anything is not constraining enough? If so, you've got that backwards. It is *because* the Web is so constraining that it is powerful enough to include everything. I think the word you're looking for is "limitation", not constraint. e.g. it would be a limitation if the Web was not able to include everything. Constraints are inputs to an architecture/style; what forms of solution do I forgo to gain valuable properties? Limitations are outputs; what can or can't I do well as a result of the constraints? MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2003 16:32:19 UTC