Re: SPEC: DNS conventions & "naming" of VRML sites

Brian Behlendorf ([email protected])
Thu, 15 Jun 1995 15:35:20 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, Andrew C. Esh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ye , but I think the chanb> is significant enough so that VRML will be
> viewed by the public as a separate concept. They will see it as a
> superset, and flock to VRML browsers which can display both VRML and
> HTML. If a server has a "vrml." name, they will see that as one which
> mainly base
> since they would only expect to get HTML documents there. BTW: Thees is
> no restriction that a "vrml." server cannot have HTML, or even Gopher
> services available.

That's funny, these are all the same reasons why I think it's not a good
idea. I don't want exclusive at all.

> > It would also cause those who want<
> > to be "ser/a> " about VRML to fire up a separate server on a separate IP<
> > number (virtual or real).
>
> What? The same host can reply with the same IP


> different domain name . You could have one machine be both "www." and
> "vrml." and answer calls to both name . You don't need another machine.

If you want different IP HTTP connection. If they host the same content, what benefit do you get
from having the two separate hostname ?

> > I suggest that instead of http://vrml.host.com/ the convention be<
> >
> > http://www.host.com/vrml/
>
> No, because if I'm looking for something that I KNOW was in a VRML space,
> and a site gives


  • > going to fgo for the "vrml." server.

    So how is that different than choosing between http://www.blah.blah/ and
    http://www.blah.blah/vrml? In fact, clients that properly use content
    negotiation will let someone know when variants of the received object
    exist, and on what conditions they are variants.

    > Following your reasoning, we could apply the same naming ideas to www,
    > 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.

    er, no, ftp and gopher is a subset of "WWW", and that only came about
    when Mosaic developers elected to enable gopher and ftp interactions as
    well. In a of www.host.com, but that's a variant on the type of protocol used, not
    the type of data transmitted.

    Brian

    --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
    [email protected] [email protected] http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/