Lyndon Levesley wrote:
Michael Dillon wrote : -> On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Pete Davis wrote: -> -> > With all this talk of IP Allocation, does anybody know of a time frame -> > for Prodigy/AOL/Compuserve to become HTML 1.1 compliant? -> > -> > We have been trying to conserve IP space wherever possible, but the inab -> ility -> > for 6+ million people to see "software virtuals" based on HTML 1.1 has p -> revented -> > us from transitioning from /32's for each site to one single /32 for tho -> usands. -> -> Selling a virtual website without allocating a unique IP address is fraud -> and will continue to be fraud for the next few years. ->
Surely that's only the case if you misrepresent the service you're selling when you market/sell it ?
It would be nice to see some stats about the percentage of 1.1 compliant browsers that people are using, such as what percentage of web hits to a reasonable sample of sites are made from "antiquated" browsers ? I imagine that as soon as that figure fell below 1% then the product wouldn't be entirely unmarketable.
[ ... ] Am I getting confused here myself, or are we talking about HTTP/1.1 rather than HTML 1.1 ? One good reason at the moment for not moving to only providing support for HTTP/1.1 is the lack of support for it in lynx, which many blind people use as a browser, and lack of support for which by ISPs would probably be fairly politically unpopular. I guess in terms of misrepresentation we're talking about the fairly established term "virtual web server" which I would say has been fairly well established in common parlance as being indistinguishable from a real web server, so an HTTP/1.1 only server at the moment could probably be said to not always meet that definition given the above. M -- Martin Cooper Work <mjc@xara.net> | Personal <mjc@cooper.org.uk>