5 ms·

Canon to begin acquisition of the ".canon" Top-Level Domain name

42 points by eswat 17y ago

fseek 17y ago
I am th only one who hate the idea of generic top-level domains? Will their web site be accessible just as http://.canon http://.canon? .
- Legion 17y ago
  Yes, but it will redirect. It won't be canonical.
  - sjs382 17y ago
    I see what you did there...
    - ryanwanger 17y ago
      Looks like I accidentally ended up at Reddit...
- durana 17y ago
  There's nothing technical DNS-wise that would prevent the name 'canon' from resolving to an IP address, so http://canon http://canon could work. They could also add a MX record for the name 'canon' so @canon e-mail addresses would work too. Maybe ICANN has rules around gTLDs that would prevent this type of use?
  - rbranson 17y ago
    I'm sure this will break a ridiculous number of regular expressions for email address validation.
    - jedberg 17y ago
      Yes, but that is their own fault for trying to use a regex to validate email addresses. :)
      - atlbeer 17y ago
        (?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:(?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?: \r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:( ?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\0 31]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\ ](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+ (?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?: (?:\r\n)?[ \t])))|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z |(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t]))\<(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\ r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )))(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])* )(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))) :(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))?(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+ |\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r \n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?: \r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t ]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031 ]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\]( ?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(? :(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(? :\r\n)?[ \t])))\>(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(? :(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)? [ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])):(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:(?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]| \\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<> @,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|" (?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\ ".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(? :[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[ \]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000- \031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|( ?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))\<(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:@(?:[^()<>@,; :\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([ ^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\" .\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\ ]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\ [\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\ r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\] |\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))):(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))?(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \0 00-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\ .|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@, ;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(? :[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])* (?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\". \[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[ ^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\] ]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))\>(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:,\s( ?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\ ".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:( ?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[ \["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t ])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t ])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(? :\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+| \Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))|(?: [^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\ ]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))\<(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t])(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\[" ()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<> @,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@, ;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\ ".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))):(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))? (?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\". \[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?: \r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\[ "()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]) ))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]) +|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\ .(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z |(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))\>(?:( ?:\r\n)?[ \t]))))?;\s)
  - reconbot 17y ago
    regardless of the rules there are a few tlds that route mail and resolve to websites. http://to./ http://to./ comes to mind, but there are a few others.
- codexon 17y ago
  Its a domain squatter's dream come true.
  - JacobAldridge 17y ago
    Or is the end (eventually) for the squatting game? When there are hundreds or thousands of alternatives for xyz.com, won't that seriously diminish the worth of any one in particular?
    - blogimus 17y ago
      Doesn't matter. Most will be found by Google search.
      - rayval 17y ago
        it is not a domain squatter's dream come true, it is the DNS bureaucracy cabal's dream come true. It has little value for users/consumers (i.e., won't remember if they want canon.com or canon.canon). It has little value for businesses, because it means more time and money monitoring for domain squatting and trademark infringement. It provides yet another playing field for scammers and other predators. The only benefit is to the upper levels in the DNS hiearchy, gives them more revenue to perpetuate themselves and to come up with more user-hostile ideas.
        blogimus 17y ago
        I agree, and as I said, it really doesn't matter. The vast majority of people are going to get what they need through Google, and to a lessor extent, the other search engines.
        codexon 17y ago
        It has little value for users/consumers (i.e., won't remember if they want canon.com or canon.canon). Actually if you buy an arbitrary top level domain, there will be no more .com. Instead it will be .google, .apple or .hackernews
  - 17y ago
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I don't hate it, indeed I like the idea of.anigbrowl or so :-) I think domain names themselves are transient, in recent years I find myself doing things like searching for 'Canon camera' and letting Chrome and Google take care of the routing. This post automatically generated by Google.com in response to inarticulate mumblings by user anigbrowl
- jonny_noog 17y ago
  No you're not. I'm still getting over the trauma of .info, .tv et al.
- derefr 17y ago
  http://canon./ http://canon./, rather. Like http://to./ http://to./ Most lesser-known TLDs with a central registrar already do this by giving themselves the www.TLD. record; for example http://www.tv/ http://www.tv/ or http://www.name/ http://www.name/. When you try just "tv./" or "name./" in your browser, it'll try those as well, without having to muddy up the main record.
  - loup-vaillant 17y ago
    I thought the dot was a separator. Why do we have to have one at all? Why the canonical URL shouldn't be http://cannon/ http://cannon/ ?
    - derefr 17y ago
      http://canon/ http://canon/ would refer to whatever canon was local to your gateway's DNS host record (I believe; I can't find the exact term for it.) For example, my computer is d207-6-247-238.bchsia.telus.net. If I type "canon" into anything that calls gethostbyname(), it assumes I mean canon.bchsia.telus.net. When that doesn't resolve, then it tries "canon." http://canon./ http://canon./, on the other hand, refers to the "canon" that is located at the "root directory" of the internet—that is, ".". Most addresses don't need this, because once you specify any more than a host name, it assumes the rest of the domain "path" is a fully-qualified DNS record, and doesn't bother checking your local network for it.
- Saavedro 17y ago
  Actually http://canon./ http://canon./ (http://canon/ http://canon/ would also work in rare cases (No DNS search domain set and the browser also doesn't try to interpret it as a keyword.))
gsiener 17y ago
Shoot, was it MyWedding.canon or MyWedding.nikon?
- clistctrl 17y ago
  Cannon would likely have e05.cannon i bet you meant to type MyWedding.HackerNewsPhotographyInc Thats not so bad, in my opinion.
krainboltgreene 17y ago
The Internet needs a better API, architecture.
- jerf 17y ago
  DNS is a wonderful protocol for the most part. The problems you think you have with it are almost certainly problems with the centrally-run canonical DNS, but nothing stops you from not using it. You can use whatever DNS you like, set up a parallel internet if you like. Of course, nobody can find you, but that's the price of nonconformity. However, the mere fact that this is possible will always tend to rein in the central repository, because if they get bad enough, we can leave. It might hurt, but we can leave.
  - krallja 17y ago
    My name is krallja and I am a Reddit addict. I am using this method to delete Reddit from my entire home network, and continue down the road to recovery.
  - ez77 17y ago
    This sounds really interesting. Would you advise some further reading on this topic? Thanks.
    - jerf 17y ago
      Honestly, the Wikipedia article is a pretty good start. From there you can branch out into the RFCs if you want to really dig in, or go some other routes. By the way, don't be afraid to read the actual RFCs; many of them are quite approachable with only moderate knowledge. Most of them discuss not just the what, but the why, and it's generally OK to skip a section you don't care about. Then, after reading the RFCs, you'll usually find that even if you still don't understand it all, you understand it better than most people.
jonursenbach 17y ago
Who's going to be the first to try registering pachelbels.canon?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- mortenjorck 17y ago
  This really is going to be like the early days of the Internet all over again.
- aaronbrethorst 17y ago
  I'm going for nikon.is-so-much-better-than.canon even though i shoot with a 40D ;)
jackowayed 17y ago
So, Canon realizes that half of the programs in the world (if not more) that autodetect urls aren't going to detect http://canon http://canon or anemailusername@cannon as urls/emails, right?That limits what they can really do with this. I guess they could have other stuff redirect to http://canon http://canon, and urls for "subdomains", which are now normal domains, become nice and might catch some more url detectors. http://slr.canon http://slr.canon and the like. It's still a major problem.
- jerf 17y ago
  Of course, they own canon.com, and http://canon http://canon will generally redirect there. Then they set up their own nameserver to simply do things like redirect blah.blah.canon.com to blah.blah.canon. Then you find yourself asking what the point of all this is again because DNS is already hierarchical and once you own canon.com you already own an effectively-infinite series of subdomains, so Canon is spending $185,000 + ongoing maintenance so they can trim ".com" off and incur first-mover expenses as they encounter those problems you mention and that seems hardly worth it. But hey, who am I to argue?
derefr 17y ago
This, completely separately from anything Canon the company is doing, seems like a useful TLD. HarryPotter.canon, Firefly.canon, etc—to be able to tell when you're not looking at a fan-site of a creative work, but rather a place where any messages delivered through it can be considered, well, canonical.
- akkartik 17y ago
  Since when can you tell anything about a site by looking at the TLD?
  - derefr 17y ago
    To register a .ca domain, I have to be a Canadian citizen. To register a .edu domain, you have to be an accredited university (and you don't really "register" for it either—you just tell EDUCASE who the administrative contact is going to be, and they set everything else up.) In my fantasy-land, .canon could be handled by some international dual of the Writer's Guild in the same way.
allenbrunson 17y ago
does anybody know what you have to do to register your own top-level domain? i hope it's very very expensive, or else we've got another early-nineties-style land-grab on our hands.
- wrs 17y ago
  It's pretty darn expensive, starting with a $185,000 "evaluation fee" to ICANN, and then whatever it costs to run a registrar. (I expect you'll be able to outsource the latter.) See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/strategy-faq.htm http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/strategy-faq.htm
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Hexstream 17y ago
"With the adoption of the new gTLD system, which enables the direct utilization of the Canon brand, Canon hopes to globally integrate open communication policies that are intuitive and easier to remember compared with existing domain names such as "canon.com."" Yeah, because canon.com is really unintuitive and hard to remember. Besides, I'm thinking lots of confusion will ensue. You see a TV ad: "Visit us on the web at canon!" Typical human being: "Well, what's their address? They forgot to tell!"
- chronomex 17y ago
  "Visit us at ICANN keyword Canon!"
mortenjorck 17y ago
The general public already has enough trouble remembering what sites are .com, .net, and .org, and most are flummoxed by amusing uses of other national TLDs. What purpose can this possibly serve Canon other than as a status symbol?
- amackera 17y ago
  The general public will get used to it, I imagine.
kgosser 17y ago
Is this an attempt to bypass search engines? So I go to an address bar, and search for "canon" which in the old days would do a google search on that... but on the new days checks for a TLD and goes to http://canon http://canon ... ?
est 17y ago
IMHO too many TLD is harmful. It creates conflict with LAN hostnames.
- hartror 17y ago
  User: I can't get to the canon website it just shows a print queue for the other floor. Sysadmin: . . . %$#%#$%@
jakecarpenter 17y ago
Lets all pitch in and buy .localdomain ...
oomkiller 17y ago
I like this. For years, people have been tasked with remembering if a site was .com, .org, etc. My parents often just type "google" or "ebay" into the address bar, and expect it to go there. Now it will, using proper DNS architecture instead of relying on google or opendns.
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  The address bar? If so, your parents are a rare breed indeed. Most people, even programmers, even when given the exact domain name, even with "awesome" auto completion, use the search bar anyway.
haydenchambers 17y ago
This is great news. Now I can register f*ck.canon and devote a website to how bad the canon tax is here in spain.
allenp 17y ago
"The new gTLD system is expected to allow a company name, brand name, geographic region, or service type to be used as a gTLD within website and e-mail addresses." So I guess we can expect more of these soon. Probably a few years of super expensive costs before the floodgates are opened.
hkuo 17y ago
Honestly, I wish this is how it was from the very beginning (minus the huge cost of entry). If you think about it, what really was the point of .com, .net, .org etc... Does it really make sense that you can have both twitter.com and twitter.net? In both cases, you recognize "twitter" as the name, with .com and .net as fodder. And considering that twitter does not own twitter.net shows how meaningless that .net domain is. So you currently have twitter.com/yourname, when it could be just yourname.twitter. Or yourname.facebook. And instead of yourname@gmail.com, it would just be yourname@gmail. blahblah@hotmail. whosit@yahoo. mikeymike@doodad. stevejobs@apple. pg@yc. Furthermore, the ".com" has always been a blemish to branding. You have this beautiful simple brand name (Nike, Apple, Cisco) but then you have to advertise the url (nike.com, apple.com, cisco.com), both decapping your name and sticking the .com on the end. I know this whole .com, .net, .org, .ly has been ingrained into our structure and psyche, but just consider the above to see how much simpler it could be.

42 points by eswat 17y ago

fseek 17y ago

I am th only one who hate the idea of generic top-level domains? Will their web site be accessible just as http://.canon http://.canon? .

Legion 17y ago
Yes, but it will redirect. It won't be canonical.
- sjs382 17y ago
  I see what you did there...
  - ryanwanger 17y ago
    Looks like I accidentally ended up at Reddit...
durana 17y ago
There's nothing technical DNS-wise that would prevent the name 'canon' from resolving to an IP address, so http://canon http://canon could work. They could also add a MX record for the name 'canon' so @canon e-mail addresses would work too. Maybe ICANN has rules around gTLDs that would prevent this type of use?
- rbranson 17y ago
  I'm sure this will break a ridiculous number of regular expressions for email address validation.
  - jedberg 17y ago
    Yes, but that is their own fault for trying to use a regex to validate email addresses. :)
    - atlbeer 17y ago
      (?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:(?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?: \r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:( ?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\0 31]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\ ](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+ (?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?: (?:\r\n)?[ \t])))|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z |(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t]))\<(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\ r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )))(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])* )(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))) :(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))?(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+ |\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r \n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?: \r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t ]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031 ]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\]( ?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(? :(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(? :\r\n)?[ \t])))\>(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(? :(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)? [ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])):(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:(?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]| \\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<> @,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|" (?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\ ".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(? :[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[ \]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000- \031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|( ?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))\<(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:@(?:[^()<>@,; :\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([ ^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\" .\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\ ]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\ [\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\ r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\] |\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))):(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))?(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \0 00-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\ .|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@, ;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(? :[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])* (?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\". \[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[ ^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\] ]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))\>(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:,\s( ?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\ ".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:( ?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[ \["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t ])))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t ])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(? :\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+| \Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))|(?: [^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\ ]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))\<(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t])(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\[" ()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n) ?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<> @,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@, ;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t] )(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\ ".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))):(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))? (?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\". \[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\.(?:(?: \r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\[ "()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]) ))@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]) +|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))(?:\ .(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z |(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])))\>(?:( ?:\r\n)?[ \t]))))?;\s)
- reconbot 17y ago
  regardless of the rules there are a few tlds that route mail and resolve to websites. http://to./ http://to./ comes to mind, but there are a few others.
codexon 17y ago
Its a domain squatter's dream come true.
- JacobAldridge 17y ago
  Or is the end (eventually) for the squatting game? When there are hundreds or thousands of alternatives for xyz.com, won't that seriously diminish the worth of any one in particular?
  - blogimus 17y ago
    Doesn't matter. Most will be found by Google search.
    - rayval 17y ago
      it is not a domain squatter's dream come true, it is the DNS bureaucracy cabal's dream come true. It has little value for users/consumers (i.e., won't remember if they want canon.com or canon.canon). It has little value for businesses, because it means more time and money monitoring for domain squatting and trademark infringement. It provides yet another playing field for scammers and other predators. The only benefit is to the upper levels in the DNS hiearchy, gives them more revenue to perpetuate themselves and to come up with more user-hostile ideas.
      - blogimus 17y ago
        I agree, and as I said, it really doesn't matter. The vast majority of people are going to get what they need through Google, and to a lessor extent, the other search engines.
      - codexon 17y ago
        It has little value for users/consumers (i.e., won't remember if they want canon.com or canon.canon). Actually if you buy an arbitrary top level domain, there will be no more .com. Instead it will be .google, .apple or .hackernews
- 17y ago
anigbrowl 17y ago
I don't hate it, indeed I like the idea of.anigbrowl or so :-) I think domain names themselves are transient, in recent years I find myself doing things like searching for 'Canon camera' and letting Chrome and Google take care of the routing. This post automatically generated by Google.com in response to inarticulate mumblings by user anigbrowl
jonny_noog 17y ago
No you're not. I'm still getting over the trauma of .info, .tv et al.
derefr 17y ago
http://canon./ http://canon./, rather. Like http://to./ http://to./ Most lesser-known TLDs with a central registrar already do this by giving themselves the www.TLD. record; for example http://www.tv/ http://www.tv/ or http://www.name/ http://www.name/. When you try just "tv./" or "name./" in your browser, it'll try those as well, without having to muddy up the main record.
- loup-vaillant 17y ago
  I thought the dot was a separator. Why do we have to have one at all? Why the canonical URL shouldn't be http://cannon/ http://cannon/ ?
  - derefr 17y ago
    http://canon/ http://canon/ would refer to whatever canon was local to your gateway's DNS host record (I believe; I can't find the exact term for it.) For example, my computer is d207-6-247-238.bchsia.telus.net. If I type "canon" into anything that calls gethostbyname(), it assumes I mean canon.bchsia.telus.net. When that doesn't resolve, then it tries "canon." http://canon./ http://canon./, on the other hand, refers to the "canon" that is located at the "root directory" of the internet—that is, ".". Most addresses don't need this, because once you specify any more than a host name, it assumes the rest of the domain "path" is a fully-qualified DNS record, and doesn't bother checking your local network for it.
Saavedro 17y ago
Actually http://canon./ http://canon./ (http://canon/ http://canon/ would also work in rare cases (No DNS search domain set and the browser also doesn't try to interpret it as a keyword.))

gsiener 17y ago

Shoot, was it MyWedding.canon or MyWedding.nikon?

clistctrl 17y ago
Cannon would likely have e05.cannon i bet you meant to type MyWedding.HackerNewsPhotographyInc Thats not so bad, in my opinion.

krainboltgreene 17y ago

The Internet needs a better API, architecture.

jerf 17y ago
DNS is a wonderful protocol for the most part. The problems you think you have with it are almost certainly problems with the centrally-run canonical DNS, but nothing stops you from not using it. You can use whatever DNS you like, set up a parallel internet if you like. Of course, nobody can find you, but that's the price of nonconformity. However, the mere fact that this is possible will always tend to rein in the central repository, because if they get bad enough, we can leave. It might hurt, but we can leave.
- krallja 17y ago
  My name is krallja and I am a Reddit addict. I am using this method to delete Reddit from my entire home network, and continue down the road to recovery.
- ez77 17y ago
  This sounds really interesting. Would you advise some further reading on this topic? Thanks.
  - jerf 17y ago
    Honestly, the Wikipedia article is a pretty good start. From there you can branch out into the RFCs if you want to really dig in, or go some other routes. By the way, don't be afraid to read the actual RFCs; many of them are quite approachable with only moderate knowledge. Most of them discuss not just the what, but the why, and it's generally OK to skip a section you don't care about. Then, after reading the RFCs, you'll usually find that even if you still don't understand it all, you understand it better than most people.

jonursenbach 17y ago

Who's going to be the first to try registering pachelbels.canon?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
mortenjorck 17y ago
This really is going to be like the early days of the Internet all over again.
aaronbrethorst 17y ago
I'm going for nikon.is-so-much-better-than.canon even though i shoot with a 40D ;)

jackowayed 17y ago

So, Canon realizes that half of the programs in the world (if not more) that autodetect urls aren't going to detect http://canon http://canon or anemailusername@cannon as urls/emails, right?That limits what they can really do with this. I guess they could have other stuff redirect to http://canon http://canon, and urls for "subdomains", which are now normal domains, become nice and might catch some more url detectors. http://slr.canon http://slr.canon and the like. It's still a major problem.

jerf 17y ago
Of course, they own canon.com, and http://canon http://canon will generally redirect there. Then they set up their own nameserver to simply do things like redirect blah.blah.canon.com to blah.blah.canon. Then you find yourself asking what the point of all this is again because DNS is already hierarchical and once you own canon.com you already own an effectively-infinite series of subdomains, so Canon is spending $185,000 + ongoing maintenance so they can trim ".com" off and incur first-mover expenses as they encounter those problems you mention and that seems hardly worth it. But hey, who am I to argue?

derefr 17y ago

This, completely separately from anything Canon the company is doing, seems like a useful TLD. HarryPotter.canon, Firefly.canon, etc—to be able to tell when you're not looking at a fan-site of a creative work, but rather a place where any messages delivered through it can be considered, well, canonical.

akkartik 17y ago
Since when can you tell anything about a site by looking at the TLD?
- derefr 17y ago
  To register a .ca domain, I have to be a Canadian citizen. To register a .edu domain, you have to be an accredited university (and you don't really "register" for it either—you just tell EDUCASE who the administrative contact is going to be, and they set everything else up.) In my fantasy-land, .canon could be handled by some international dual of the Writer's Guild in the same way.

allenbrunson 17y ago

does anybody know what you have to do to register your own top-level domain? i hope it's very very expensive, or else we've got another early-nineties-style land-grab on our hands.

wrs 17y ago
It's pretty darn expensive, starting with a $185,000 "evaluation fee" to ICANN, and then whatever it costs to run a registrar. (I expect you'll be able to outsource the latter.) See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/strategy-faq.htm http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/strategy-faq.htm

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Hexstream 17y ago

"With the adoption of the new gTLD system, which enables the direct utilization of the Canon brand, Canon hopes to globally integrate open communication policies that are intuitive and easier to remember compared with existing domain names such as "canon.com."" Yeah, because canon.com is really unintuitive and hard to remember. Besides, I'm thinking lots of confusion will ensue. You see a TV ad: "Visit us on the web at canon!" Typical human being: "Well, what's their address? They forgot to tell!"

chronomex 17y ago
"Visit us at ICANN keyword Canon!"

mortenjorck 17y ago

The general public already has enough trouble remembering what sites are .com, .net, and .org, and most are flummoxed by amusing uses of other national TLDs. What purpose can this possibly serve Canon other than as a status symbol?

amackera 17y ago
The general public will get used to it, I imagine.

kgosser 17y ago

Is this an attempt to bypass search engines? So I go to an address bar, and search for "canon" which in the old days would do a google search on that... but on the new days checks for a TLD and goes to http://canon http://canon ... ?

est 17y ago

IMHO too many TLD is harmful. It creates conflict with LAN hostnames.

hartror 17y ago
User: I can't get to the canon website it just shows a print queue for the other floor. Sysadmin: . . . %$#%#$%@

jakecarpenter 17y ago

Lets all pitch in and buy .localdomain ...

oomkiller 17y ago

I like this. For years, people have been tasked with remembering if a site was .com, .org, etc. My parents often just type "google" or "ebay" into the address bar, and expect it to go there. Now it will, using proper DNS architecture instead of relying on google or opendns.

loup-vaillant 17y ago
The address bar? If so, your parents are a rare breed indeed. Most people, even programmers, even when given the exact domain name, even with "awesome" auto completion, use the search bar anyway.

haydenchambers 17y ago

This is great news. Now I can register f*ck.canon and devote a website to how bad the canon tax is here in spain.

allenp 17y ago

"The new gTLD system is expected to allow a company name, brand name, geographic region, or service type to be used as a gTLD within website and e-mail addresses." So I guess we can expect more of these soon. Probably a few years of super expensive costs before the floodgates are opened.

hkuo 17y ago

Honestly, I wish this is how it was from the very beginning (minus the huge cost of entry). If you think about it, what really was the point of .com, .net, .org etc... Does it really make sense that you can have both twitter.com and twitter.net? In both cases, you recognize "twitter" as the name, with .com and .net as fodder. And considering that twitter does not own twitter.net shows how meaningless that .net domain is. So you currently have twitter.com/yourname, when it could be just yourname.twitter. Or yourname.facebook. And instead of yourname@gmail.com, it would just be yourname@gmail. blahblah@hotmail. whosit@yahoo. mikeymike@doodad. stevejobs@apple. pg@yc. Furthermore, the ".com" has always been a blemish to branding. You have this beautiful simple brand name (Nike, Apple, Cisco) but then you have to advertise the url (nike.com, apple.com, cisco.com), both decapping your name and sticking the .com on the end. I know this whole .com, .net, .org, .ly has been ingrained into our structure and psyche, but just consider the above to see how much simpler it could be.