W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Server and client burden for URIQA vs. Link:

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:11:48 -0500
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <05B52E6F-B14C-47F4-A594-4C8E493E793E@creativecommons.org>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
(spun off from 	Subject: 	Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.)

On Feb 25, 2009, at 11:01 AM, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com 
 > wrote:

> The arguments that a linking approach imposes less implementational  
> burden
> or disruption to web sites or content publishers than approaches  
> such as
> URIQA do not bear scrutiny.

The server burden is an empirical question and I'd love it if someone  
did some research, since MGET is superior in many ways. I take your  
word for it that the Apache configuration required for MGET is as easy  
as for Link:, but I have no idea how the comparison would go on other  

It's not just a server issue of course; we have firewalls, proxies,  
caches, and filtering software to deal with, and applications that  
like to use simple client utilities such as wget (although I admit  
doing HEADs with some of these tools can be a challenge as well). What  
is your experience with URIQA in these situations?

I hope you and Eran get a chance to duke it out.

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 18:12:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:01 UTC