[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New TLDs

Martin J. Duerst wrote...
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> > After all, the IAHC is considering a .inet domain and since most people
> > think the Internet *IS* the web, a .web domain would make sense. I don't
> > think that it is avalid argument that "web" represents a protocol or
> > service like FTP because the Web is far more than just the transfer
> > of documents via http. It also encompasses all manner of JAVA applications
> > and plug-ins that operate with other services such as telnet, MUD's, IRC,
> > and so on.
> > 
> > So .INET and .WEB should definitely be on the list of 7.
> 
> And maybe .WWW and .W3 and so on????
> 
> Seriously, these things are not needed. The internet as a whole already
> has its "TLD", its plain old ".". Introducing .inet or .web might give
> the plain wrong impression that the rest of the TLDs are not on the
> web/internet. In URLs, the distinction between FTP, HTTP, and other
> protocols/services occurs outside of the domain name. Many of the
> internet services can be used with a plain old terminal emulator
> as well as with a neat web browser. TLDs such as .INET and .WEB
> are therefore not only redundant, but run againts some of the basic
> architectural structures of the internet.

Agreed.  Having a TLD like .web would also seem to encourage companies
(organizations, or what have you) to register in more than one place.  I
could forsee thousands of companies wanting to make sure Internet users
could go to http://acme.com and http://acme.web.

-Chandler Collins