Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 6:49 PM -0800 12/26/96, Michael Dillon wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Simon Higgs wrote:
>
> > > .COM and .EDU were created by people who didn't fully understand the
> > > implications of attempting to carve up the namespace.
> >
> > I don't think you really meant that.
>
> Sure I did. You can ask them if they ever imagined that .COM would become
> so popular and be the number one choice even for many non-commercial
> organizations and individuals. The people who created .COM and .EDU were
> thinking from a mostly technical standpoint and didn't really take
> sociology and anthropology into account.
>
> > > This can be clearly
> > > seen when you understand that .COM contains registrations for educational
> > > institions, non-commercial charitable organizations, military
> > > organizations, etc. In effect, .COM has become synonymous with COMMON
> > > not with COMMERCIAL.
> >
> > Commercial. Commerce. Business. Growth. Expansion. Any of that
>sound familiar?
>
> Commerce also means bankruptcy, unemployment, bad debts, lost market
> share, strikes, industrial espionage, lawsuits, and many other things.
>
> Still, this doesn't change the fact that .COM has come to be synonymous
> with COMMON.
>

Not here.

Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.