"Virtual" web servers (was Re: IP Allocation)

Lyndon Levesley wrote:

Michael Dillon 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.