On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 01:36:50PM +0000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:

22 Jun 2001 19:56:15 -0600, Alastair David Reid pisze:

...

2) Whilst looking through the hierarchy, we decided that using "Org" was a bit unfortunate since it could lead to silly-looking names like Org.Org.Haskell.... and, worse, downright confusing names like Org.Com.Galois.

Wouldn't putting domain names in the root of the hierarchy be OK? The set of top-level domain names is very stable and there are no clashes.

I can't easily see the proposal ATM, but if you own a domain then surely you already have namespace you can use under the email (user?) top level? I'm not convinced the domain top level is necessary. Ian

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes:

Wouldn't putting domain names in the root of the hierarchy be OK? The set of top-level domain names is very stable and there are no clashes.

There are an awful lot of them: one for each country in the world. I don't think there's a country called "Prelude" but there probably is one with the domain name "IO". I'm also not sure how stable they are. ICANN has been coming up with all kinds of new proposals for top level domain names based on what kind of business you are in. I haven't paid much attention to the details but there's quite a lot of them and the design seems to be very open-ended. (The whole ICANN effort is felt to be a bit pointless here in the US because we all know that Macdonalds and other big corporations will go out and reserve all names matching macdonalds.* whether it is a sensible use like macdonalds.com or an irrelevant one like macdonalds.tv or a completely inaccurate one like macdonalds.food. :-)) -- Alastair Reid reid@cs.utah.edu http://www.cs.utah.edu/~reid/