[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Chris Hanson wrote:
>> So to me a scheme URI would be something like
>> and this woud be a key into a small database that mapped
>> it to a URL giving a web address where it could be downloaded.
>But why not just use an http: URI to do that? You don't need the small
>database at all. Something like
I think that would imply excessive reliance on a single
site and server. And this is sometimes a problem. Aside
from the situation becoming such that the entire community
would be hosed if a single server should go down, it would
impose a significant burden (and bandwidth costs) on the
maintainers of that site.
> The database could be stored on the server instead of having a local
> copy everywhere.
Are you prepared to run the server and do the indexing and
the archiving and mirroring and suck up the bandwidth costs?