Mark Andrews wrote:
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 would
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/ time
to update the naming standards.
and maybe it is not. If people can't behave, adjusting standards may be the
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.
The ironic thing is, I don't think that *aesthetically* I favor
underscores any more than Mark does.
But, to me, it's like a Free Speech thing -- I may disagree with what
someone says (analogous to not liking their use of underscores in
names), but at the same time vigorously defend their right to say it.
Since there seems to be no practical problem with using underscores,
only aesthetic differences, I think they should be allowed, even though
I personally find them to be ugly.
- Kevin
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
