Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <49a755bf.9030...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> > Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > >> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> When does it stop? What will be the next character you
> > >>> "just have to have"? At the moment you have 1 inter label
> > >>> seperator and 1 intra label seperator. That should be
> > >>> enough for anyone.
> > >>>
> > >
> > > On 25.02.09 08:49, Peter Laws wrote:
> > >
> > >> Like 640k of memory.
> > >>
> > >
> > > the main effect of allowing underscores would be that some companies woul
> d
> > > want/need to buy much more domains, e.g.
> > >
> > > a-b
> > > a_b
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > a-b-c
> > > a_b_c
> > > a_b-c
> > > a-b_c
> > >
> > > I don't see any benefit in that.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Unicode is coming (as fast as IPv6, maybe faster :), so maybe it /is/ ti
> me
> >
> > >> to update the naming standards.
> > >>
> > >
> > > and maybe it is not. If people can't behave, adjusting standards may be t
> he
> > > worst solution.
> >
> > But, as far as I can tell, there's no *practical* reason to disallow
> > underscores, other than the fact that it may trip the standards-checking
> > code of some _other_ piece of software. So, piece of software A
> > disallows underscores because it's worried about causing a problem for
> > piece of software B, and piece of software B keeps the restriction
> > because it's worried about about causing a problem for piece of software
> > C, and piece of software C keeps the restriction because it's worried
> > about causing a problem for piece of software A.
> >
> > Do you see how self-defeating that is? Everyone is looking out for
> > everyone else, yet there is no actual *real* problem with allowing
> > underscores. They're all just trying to protect each other against an
> > imagined threat.
> >
> > I've heard that in the old old days (70s, perhaps earlier) some
> > teletypes had a problem distinguishing between an underscore and a
> > backspace. That was a real honest-to-goodness *problem* with
> > underscores, and is probably why underscore was banned from hostnames in
> > the first place. But those teletypes are long gone. Rusted away or in a
> > museum somewhere. Get over it.
> >
> > I agree with not changing standards to accommodate "bad behavior". But,
> > at the same time, the standards need to have a practical basis, not be
> > arbitrary or just a carryover from decades ago. As far as I can tell,
> > the underscore restriction, in particular, is just a legacy carryover
> > and has no practical use.
> >
> > - Kevin
>
> W_h_e_r_e_ _i_s_ _t__h_e_ _h_o_s_t_._n_a_m_e__
> _i_n_ _t_h_i___s_ ___l_i_n__e.
W_h_e_r_e_ _i_s_ _t_h_e_ _u_n_d_e_r_s_c_o_r_e_
_(___)_ _i_n_ _t_h_i_s_ _l_i_n_e_?_
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
