- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:40:15 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: timbl@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 10:52:09 AM, Patrick wrote: >> The solution should also allow a distributed and scalable architecture >> that allows multiple users to share one server, rather than the wildly >> unrealistic and unfair constraint of the server owner controlling >> everything. PSnc> While I'm all for the most flexible and enabling solution, I think PSnc> this issue of some users not having control over their servers is PSnc> a social issue, not a technical issue. That is where you would be wrong. Fixing it (by for example giving everyone a free server they control) would be a social issue. Failing to account for this restriction in a technical architecture is a technical issue. PSnc> Folks that live in apartment buildings don't have total control PSnc> over their domiciles. If they want total control, they should PSnc> buy a house. I am not especially interested in building a web architecture that only applies to corporate brochure publishers and ignores anyone else as irrelevant. PSnc> And if enough tenants in a given apartment building (enough users PSnc> of a given server) want some change to the shared resources, then PSnc> they can request it, or demand it, or then find a more suitable PSnc> place to live. Thats a social issue ;-) PSnc> Whatever solution is promoted, it should not disregard the rights PSnc> of server owners to decide how their servers are used, Sure, server owners should be able to lock down a server if they want to. But that should not be the default option and not the only option. PSnc> and the PSnc> fact that folks residing on those servers have agreed to waive PSnc> certain rights in order to reside there. No, they have not so agreed. And an unrealistic, elitist and utopian architecture that applies only to some small fraction of content providers is just a waste of time. Besides, the same problem afflicts corporates too so its not some bleeding heart liberal philosophy here - its pragmatism. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 18:40:27 UTC