From: nir dagan <email@example.com> Message-Id: <199803211747.SAA17869@sahara.upf.es> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 18:47:33 MET Cc: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.980321004834.13331Afirstname.lastname@example.org>; from "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" at Mar 21, 98 12:58 (midnight) Subject: Client side : an economic perspective was: Re:... I would like to make a point in favor of client side "things" in general as opposed to server side. In the early days of the Web there was an identity between the "website" and the server. It is no longer the case as many small and medium websites are hosted as user accounts on larger servers. Server side "things" require unnecessary coordination between the authors of the websites and server manager. For example I have some hard time to find a working mechanism that will allow professors in my department to run CGI scripts on a joint server (e,g,, for interactive tutorials). I think this point is more of *an economic* issue. Running a server has some considerable set up cost while running a website doesn't have these costs. Although the cost of running a server may go down in the future, I suspect it will take some time. Anything that can be shifted from server to client has this advantage. Starting from image maps, through CGI versus applets and the latest proposal of O'Connor that allows client side includes. Regards, Nir Dagan.