- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 21:54:32 -0800
- To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Cc: "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "connolly@w3.org" <connolly@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > I'll separate the two for my next draft and correct this. > > Adding URIQA support in many hosted environments or large corporate > deployment isn't simple. It sets a pretty steep threshold on > adoption [1]. I actually like the MGET approach a lot, but I can't > sell it to 90% of my use cases. Consider me an extreme pragmatists... > > EHL > > [1] http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/02/the-equal-access-principal.html I don't know about hosted environments and corporate deployments generally, but one thing I like about Link: is that in Apache, at least, it can be inserted using a directive in an .htaccess file. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_headers.html It looks as if the Apache 'script' directive could be used to enable URIQA, but it requires installation of a CGI script (or something similar), raising the bar a teeny bit (perhaps beyond what's practical in certain deployments). (Not that .htaccess is always permitted to use the header directive anyhow.) http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_actions.html The problem is that I believe both Eran and Patrick, who say conflicting things. We have talked a lot about technical merit and generalities. Since the questions of practicality and simplicity are empirical any hard data pro or con either side would be helpful, especially as regards non-Apache platforms. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 05:55:11 UTC