Thomas Lord scripsit:
> You are completely mistaken, however, to say that the ICANN problem
> infects URI-based names. Authorities in URIs do not have to be
> or include hostnames or IP addresses. Within a given community of
> discourse, the scheme of the URI tells how to interpret the authority.
Technically true; however, in practice DNS is used (and works well
enough) in all widely deployed URI schemes that have authority fields.
> Schemer's could, for example, agree to allocate names using their
> GPS coordinates plus UST timestamp as the authority. ICANN is not
> involved.
There are obvious quibbles: what happens when you move into the house
I formerly occupied?
> This does leave open the question "Who is the authority over URI
> scheme names?" A good answer is "nobody in particular" -- the
> interpretation of scheme names (e.g., "http:") is ultimately up to
> each application.
And that works well enough in practice too.
> By "computer-naming world" you mean the parts of society that are
> concerned with naming physical computers, right?
Right.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit
Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 18:14:03 UTC