- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:06:11 -0500
- To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
Charles Lindsey scripsit: > OK I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the interpretations implied by the > paragraph above are clearly for "locally defined" facilities, and > therefore should not be defined in a standard beyond some remark that > authorities/hosts other than empty, 'localhost' and domain names are > expected to be meaningful only in some local context which must be > locally understood. Well, WINS names are local in the sense that they are defined by local nameservers rather than global ones, that's true. But that's an accident of history, plus the fact that the name service protocol doesn't scale over the Internet. > So it might be reasonable for the feature you described to be used with > Windows systems, but it would be cpmpletely meaningless in that for in a > Unix context. Unix systems can and do participate in WINS networks, typically by running Samba. In principle, a WINS network could exist with no Windows boxes at all. > Indeed, even though the file scheme will be defined in an 'internet' > document, it will ahve little, if anything, to say about communiucations > sent across the internet. Quite true. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! --Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun" cowan@ccil.org
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 06:06:40 UTC