Re: www in URL's??

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

Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: www in URL's?? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Dec 1995 23:31:28 PST."
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 11:18:31 +0000
From: Martin Hamilton <>

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!)