4 ms·

If only we had gone with the other order for domain names, that is com.disney.www instead of www.disney.com. Then browser TLD defaulting would have handled mos

by anamax 15y ago

If only we had gone with the other order for domain names, that is com.disney.www instead of www.disney.com. Then browser TLD defaulting would have handled most cases and we could have had additional conventions (such as *.store). (The "www." subdomain is basically useless.)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
mjwalshe 15y ago
The Uk used to do that :-)
underwater 15y ago
In that case there is still a TLD. It's probably worse because the differentiating part of the domain is buried halfway into the domain name. Imagine having domains like com.disney and com.donald. They look the same. The web has no hierarchy so it doesn't make sense for domain names to have one. It would have been nicer to ditch the TLDs, use a sane protocol name and have implicit slashes. Like web:disney/some-path.
- excuse-me 15y ago
  The web may not have a hierarchy but URLS do - but it doesn't work as well as the earlier X25/x400 version. So we have to have an address that increases left->right, then switches halfway through to a different format decreasing left->right www.group.department.university.edu.country/person/topic/page Instead of the more logical country.edu.university.department.group.person.topic.page
- anamax 15y ago
  > The web has no hierarchy so it doesn't make sense for domain names to have one. Actually, the "web" does have lots of hierarchy. For example, Disney has hierarchy that the current scheme makes it inconveient to express. That's why we have disneystore.com, disneycruise.com, etc. instead of com.disney.store, com,disney.cruise, etc.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    See Berners Lee's regrets: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BCP5023/Sandbox#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BCP5023/Sandbox#History)
nextparadigms 15y ago
And who would control the .www domain? US?
- anamax 15y ago
  > And who would control the .www domain? US? The same as today. In www.disney.com, disney controls that www. In com.disney.wwww, disney controls that www. However, in the latter, disney could do com.disney.store . And, with browser defaulting the tld, disney.store would work. Disney isn't going to use store.disney. However, they might well use disney.store if they controlled it. With the current order, they don't. They would with the reverse order.
notspanishflu 15y ago
> (The "www." subdomain is basically useless.) Tanguy Ortolo answers 'Why www?' better than me. http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article47/why-www http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article47/why-www

by anamax 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

mjwalshe 15y ago

The Uk used to do that :-)

underwater 15y ago

In that case there is still a TLD. It's probably worse because the differentiating part of the domain is buried halfway into the domain name. Imagine having domains like com.disney and com.donald. They look the same. The web has no hierarchy so it doesn't make sense for domain names to have one. It would have been nicer to ditch the TLDs, use a sane protocol name and have implicit slashes. Like web:disney/some-path.

excuse-me 15y ago
The web may not have a hierarchy but URLS do - but it doesn't work as well as the earlier X25/x400 version. So we have to have an address that increases left->right, then switches halfway through to a different format decreasing left->right www.group.department.university.edu.country/person/topic/page Instead of the more logical country.edu.university.department.group.person.topic.page
anamax 15y ago
> The web has no hierarchy so it doesn't make sense for domain names to have one. Actually, the "web" does have lots of hierarchy. For example, Disney has hierarchy that the current scheme makes it inconveient to express. That's why we have disneystore.com, disneycruise.com, etc. instead of com.disney.store, com,disney.cruise, etc.
- DanBC 15y ago
  See Berners Lee's regrets: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BCP5023/Sandbox#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BCP5023/Sandbox#History)

nextparadigms 15y ago

And who would control the .www domain? US?

anamax 15y ago
> And who would control the .www domain? US? The same as today. In www.disney.com, disney controls that www. In com.disney.wwww, disney controls that www. However, in the latter, disney could do com.disney.store . And, with browser defaulting the tld, disney.store would work. Disney isn't going to use store.disney. However, they might well use disney.store if they controlled it. With the current order, they don't. They would with the reverse order.

notspanishflu 15y ago

> (The "www." subdomain is basically useless.) Tanguy Ortolo answers 'Why www?' better than me. http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article47/why-www http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article47/why-www