4 ms·
> Wolfram's proposal sounds completely backward to me. You'd have to consider: does google.data apply to google.org or google.com? Should we have google.org.dat
by mrlase 15y ago
> Wolfram's proposal sounds completely backward to me. You'd have to consider: does google.data apply to google.org or google.com? Should we have google.org.data and google.com.data?
As for that notion, maybe we should switch to naming it such as we do for java packages :D
Google.com would be com.google.search, com.google.mail, etc :P
- donut 15y agoIt has crossed TBL's mind: "I have to say that now I regret that the syntax is so clumsy. I would like http://www.example.com/foo/bar/baz http://www.example.com/foo/bar/baz to be just written http:com/example/foo/bar/baz where the client would figure out that www.example.com existed and was the server to contact. But it is too late now." http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html#etc http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html#etc