h a l f b a k e r y
I think this would be a great thing to not do.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
Just like ICQ has an ID for every user which is unique, imagine if
every website had a unique ID number which you could jump to immediately
via any search engine.
Better than URL's since they change. ID's would be registered, so if
someone else used your ID, the central body would report violations...
(?) Uniform Resource Names (URN)
Names are better than numbers. They're called URNs. They haven't caught on yet. [egnor, Mar 27 2000, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Cool URIs don't change
Tim Berners-Lee's rant on the topic. It's not like URLs have to change. ``A cool URI is one which does not change.'' [egnor, Mar 27 2000, last modified Oct 17 2004]
``Internet Keywords'': another attempt at a central registry for persistent, non-URL Web site identifiers that search engines recognize. Also a failure. [egnor, Mar 27 2000, last modified Oct 17 2004]
See? It already works [hippo, Mar 27 2000, last modified Oct 17 2004]
This site converts any domain name into a single 32-bit number, as above. [hippo, Mar 27 2000, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Numbers are better than names, if all you have is a keypad. Here's yet another central registry trying to cash in on that. [jutta, Mar 27 2000]
||The 32bit int trick only works on some DNS resolvers. Unfortunately, the Mac suffers from an inability to resolve those.
||this is what ip addresses are.
||Real kids don't say "Please"
||I see the value in owning IDs: unlike domains that get lost because of
not paying fees, these IDs would be virtually free forever. The question is
still the cost: supporting current DNS system comes at a cost, and
having an index of IDs would also come at a cost of reliably storing that
||//The question is still the cost//