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
