> Universal unique canonical names are not a good thing because the problem of name squatting exists. They're not a good idea when they are user-friendly, beca

> Universal unique canonical names are not a good thing because the problem of name squatting exists. They're not a good idea when they are user-friendly, because of domain squatting. But `ebbfed3a54f82da274b51df5c5f1fcd8644edc0b5beb86643a0e177f1cb4ad60` is a perfectly good universal, unique, canonical name, and `(ebbfed3a54f82da274b51df5c5f1fcd8644edc0b5beb86643a0e177f1cb4ad60 foo)` is a good relative name, rooted in a universally-unique name.