Historic:PureContent: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "== Synopsis == A central site would handle contents, but would not distribute it massively as HTML. Instead, a streamlined "pure content" would be provided to a number of web...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Synopsis == | == Synopsis == | ||
A central site would handle | A central site would handle content, but would not distribute it massively as HTML. Instead, a streamlined "pure content" would be provided to a number of web servers, which would "skin" the content with whatever they would like. The servers might compete with their skins, but they might also put ads if they would wish. Anyway, it would be the users, which would decide which web server to choose. | ||
In this way, the cost of running the central server would be reduced, and the main cost - bandwidth and HTML generation, would be distributed to the community. | In this way, the cost of running the central server would be reduced, and the main cost - bandwidth and HTML generation, would be distributed to the community. | ||
== Technology == | == Technology == | ||
Dedicated protocols would likely be most efficient, when it comes to minimising costs of running the central site. | Dedicated protocols would likely be the most efficient ones, when it comes to minimising costs of running the central site. | ||
Revision as of 14:52, 8 February 2014
Synopsis
A central site would handle content, but would not distribute it massively as HTML. Instead, a streamlined "pure content" would be provided to a number of web servers, which would "skin" the content with whatever they would like. The servers might compete with their skins, but they might also put ads if they would wish. Anyway, it would be the users, which would decide which web server to choose.
In this way, the cost of running the central server would be reduced, and the main cost - bandwidth and HTML generation, would be distributed to the community.
Technology
Dedicated protocols would likely be the most efficient ones, when it comes to minimising costs of running the central site.