Re: www in URL's??

Martin Hamilton (
Fri, 29 Dec 1995 11:18:31 +0000

Paul Ramsey writes:

| >

Too late - we already have,,,, ... And that's just a few plucked at
random from the h's!

Perhaps we need some sort of directory service ? No problem - take
your pick of,,,,, ... :-)

| > P.S. Don't bother flaming me, yes, I know we are digressing
| > *badly* from HTML...

Well, I don't know - the success of HTML has led to this situation,
albeit indirectly ? Myself, I think the rot set in around the time
<IMG> first reared its ugly head!

| I agree that it is bit silly but there is no point in getting worked up about
| it. Now these people have to pay $100 for each domain name they register so
| at least they are paying for the waste. Just think about all the paper that
| is generated every time a company trademarks something. Compared to that
| domain name consumption is not so bad.

But it is actually a problem ?

.com is full of crap (check out!)
BIND is still memory based :-((
is hard for real people to transcribe
(fewer hits -> less business?)
makes it obvious that you're a latecomer
(ho ho - what a long URL! loser!)
is _still_ ambiguous!

etc etc

Cheerio, (and Happy New Year!)