RE: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal

Aleecia,

This is probably a situation where less than 1% of web site owners have technical skills at your level or above.  Having worked with many small business owners via Yahoo! Small Biz, I've seen their reliance on pre-packaged products, the difficulties that have in even operating those, and I believe they would be COMPLETELY lost if asked to manage something more detailed from a response header coding perspective.  On the other hand, if they had to create a single page on their site (well-known URI) with a specific format of text, they could probably accomplish this.

- Shane

From: Aleecia M. McDonald [mailto:aleecia@aleecia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:44 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Initial feedback on the well-known URI Proposal


On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:


The one choice that does appear to be off the table at this point (unless someone strongly disagrees) is Response Headers in isolation as this would take years before medium to small web sites would be able to support DNT then (would require standard web server systems to come with off-the-shelf support for Response Headers).  Agreed?


Not following, perhaps my mistake here. I should think that adding a response header to www.aleecia.com<http://www.aleecia.com> would be trivial for a competent developer, and that the code would be easy enough to have sample code for copy&paste cargo cult programming for the non-competent programmers (read: people like me.) It might take longer to get PHP installed, updated, and running...

What am I missing? Where is this hard?

            Aleecia