Re: [Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
Has anyone looked into introducing .wiki, initially for Wikimedia, but later for others (the fee could support the foundation)? On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose in theory having apple available is no worse than apple.com (since you *could* have an apple.com.mylocaldomain already and have to worry about which takes precedence), but in practice that sounds like a crappy thing to do. :) Well, yes, this is exactly why you don't usually use TLDs as subdomains on top of company internal search path. I guess this makes us switch back to IP addresses, if there's a constant chance of conflict we can no longer control :-) With IPv6 that will be even easier. And who needs DNS when we have Google. Domas ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone looked into introducing .wiki, initially for Wikimedia, but later for others (the fee could support the foundation)? Got $US 185,000 handy to cover the application fee? -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
- Original Message - From: Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone looked into introducing .wiki, initially for Wikimedia, but later for others (the fee could support the foundation)? Got $US 185,000 handy to cover the application fee? I'm sure WMF could come up with it... but I already spend enough time trying to teach people that I saw it on Wiki is *not* a well-enough defined comment. Wikipedia != MediaWiki != Wiki. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
I suppose in theory having apple available is no worse than apple.com (since you *could* have an apple.com.mylocaldomain already and have to worry about which takes precedence), but in practice that sounds like a crappy thing to do. :) Well, yes, this is exactly why you don't usually use TLDs as subdomains on top of company internal search path. I guess this makes us switch back to IP addresses, if there's a constant chance of conflict we can no longer control :-) With IPv6 that will be even easier. And who needs DNS when we have Google. Domas ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
While the topic of how Mediawiki handles URLs is on the table, let me point out today's Slashdot piece, which notes that ICANN is about to open up the gTLD namespace... *to everyone*, not just commercial registries. Contemplate, if you will: http://apple/ How will MW handle a FQDN with no dots in it, when that becomes legal? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: While the topic of how Mediawiki handles URLs is on the table, let me point out today's Slashdot piece, which notes that ICANN is about to open up the gTLD namespace... *to everyone*, not just commercial registries. Contemplate, if you will: http://apple/ How will MW handle a FQDN with no dots in it, when that becomes legal? Those are already perfectly legal hostnames to have in URLs, and you see single-part hostnames all the time on internal networks, either by eliding the local domain part (since local DNS will resolve it) or by only using single-part names to begin with. For a common example: try linking to http://localhost/ -- it works just fine. :) I suppose in theory having apple available is no worse than apple.com (since you *could* have an apple.com.mylocaldomain already and have to worry about which takes precedence), but in practice that sounds like a crappy thing to do. :) -- brion ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ICANN expansion, relative URLs
- Original Message - From: Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: While the topic of how Mediawiki handles URLs is on the table, let me point out today's Slashdot piece, which notes that ICANN is about to open up the gTLD namespace... *to everyone*, not just commercial registries. Contemplate, if you will: http://apple/ How will MW handle a FQDN with no dots in it, when that becomes legal? Those are already perfectly legal hostnames to have in URLs, and you see single-part hostnames all the time on internal networks, either by eliding the local domain part (since local DNS will resolve it) or by only using single-part names to begin with. For a common example: try linking to http://localhost/ -- it works just fine. :) Sure. And http may not be the best example. There's lots of code out there -- email address verifiers, for example -- that *requires* a dot in a hostname. I suppose in theory having apple available is no worse than apple.com (since you *could* have an apple.com.mylocaldomain already and have to worry about which takes precedence), but in practice that sounds like a crappy thing to do. :) And you make an excellent point I hadn't gotten to yet: collisions between such dotless FQDNs and internal hostnames are *much* more likely - especially since the Usual Suspects in both namespaces are related so closely. In practice, though, localhost and hosts on your lan -- in which case the DNS lookup is *actually* often a dotted FQDN anyway by virtue of the DNS resolver search facility -- are about the only places dotless FQDNs are generally seen... and lots of code protects you from them. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
