> I fully understand it was just a suggestion for a convention, not a
> standard, I just thought that it wasn't as elegant as it could be, since
> it semantically puts "WWW" and "VRML" as mutually exclusive, whereas the
> latter is just a part of the former.
Yes, but I think the chanb> is significant enough so that VRML will be
> It would also cause those who want<
What? The same host can reply with the same IP address for a number of
> I suggest that instead of http://vrml.host.com/ the convention be
No, because if I'm looking for something that I KNOW was in a VRML space,
Following your reasoning, we could apply the same naming ideas to www,
Thi
viewed by
HTML. If a server has a "vrml." name, they will see that as one which
mainly base
no restriction that a "vrml." server cannot have HTML, or even Gopher
services available.
> to be "serious" about VRML to fire up a separate server on a separate IP
> number (virtual or real).
different domain names. You could have one machine be both "www." and
"vrml." and answer calls to both names. You don't need another machine.
>
> http://www.host.com/vrml/
and a site give
since it is a superset of both FTP and Gopher. We should have not allowed
any new servers to be named "www.", and they should instead be
"gopher.host.com/www/..." or even "ftp.host.com/gopher/www/...". We don't
see much of that out there.
---
Andrew C. Esh mailto:[email protected]
Computer Network Technology [email protected] (finger for PGP key)
6500 Wedgwood Road 612.550.8000 (main)
Maple Grove MN 55311 612.550.8229 (direct)
<A HREF="http://www.mtn.org/~andrewes">ACE Home Page</A>