Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Tim Berners-Lee on the Web 224

notmyopinion writes "In a wide-ranging interview with the British Computer Society, Sir Tim Berners-Lee criticizes software patents, speaks out on US and ICANN control of the Internet, proposes browser security changes, and says he got domain names backwards in web addresses all those years ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tim Berners-Lee on the Web

Comments Filter:
  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:22PM (#14992428)
    It's about time he got on the web. I mean, it's like 15 years old. Everyone is on it these days.
  • Sir Tim (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XanC ( 644172 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:27PM (#14992440)
    "Sir Tim"

    I found this amusing, along the lines of "there are those who call me.... Tim."

    Seriously though, I thought he had some great things to say about professionalism in IT. We all need to absorb and remember this:

    Customers need to be given control of their own data - not being tied into a certain manufacturer so that when there are problems they are always obliged to go back to them. IT professionals have a responsibility to understand the use of standards and the importance of making Web applications that work with any kind of device.
  • by m85476585 ( 884822 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:28PM (#14992448)
    "Looking back on 15 years or so of development of the Web is there anything you would do differently given the chance?

    I would have skipped on the double slash - there's no need for it. Also I would have put the domain name in the reverse order - in order of size so, for example, the BCS address would read: http://uk.org.bcs/members [org.bcs]. The last two terms of this example could both be servers if necessary."


    He could do anything differently and he would drop a slash?
  • by Arthur B. ( 806360 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:30PM (#14992454)
    .uk.org.bcs actually no ?
  • by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:32PM (#14992460) Journal
    "Slashes should have been backwards as well, you tea-smoking Vance-Baggers."
  • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:32PM (#14992462) Journal
    Sir Tim Berners-Lee ... says he got domain names backwards in web addresses all those years ago.

    But how could you make an advertising jingle out of

    "com dot expediAAAAAAHHH!"
    • A true Brit. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:43PM (#14992486) Homepage Journal
      JANET (the Joint Academic Network) used to use X.25, which used reverse domain names, if I recall correctly. It also used HORRIBLE addressing notation. Essex University's DEC 10 (which ran the first ever massively multi-user adventure game, or rather three of them) had an address of A2206411411. (Yes, I really do remember that.)


      So the idea that he started off having trouble with the Berkeley naming convention doesn't surprise me at all.


      (I'd prefer a more heirarchical system, myself, where an organization can ONLY have one domain name and have all their actual addresses inside of that. It would make the namespace a lot less cluttered and would reduce trademark abuses. On the other hand, names would be a lot longer. However, if you're using a search engine, a portal or bookmarks most of the time anyway, that's no big deal.)

      • Re:A true Brit. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by naasking ( 94116 ) <naasking@NOSpAm.gmail.com> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:14AM (#14992555) Homepage
        It would make the namespace a lot less cluttered and would reduce trademark abuses. On the other hand, names would be a lot longer. However, if you're using a search engine, a portal or bookmarks most of the time anyway, that's no big deal.

        If you're going to use bookmarks, portals and search engines anyway, why not leverage them fully and make all names/identifiers collision-free cryptographic names. Trademark problem: solved permanently.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:20AM (#14992568)
          If you're going to use bookmarks, portals and search engines anyway, why not leverage them fully and make all names/identifiers collision-free cryptographic names. Trademark problem: solved permanently.


          In fact, every machine on the internet could be given a unique 32 bit number. Then you could connect to it using that number as the name. That would be awesome!
          • by emag ( 4640 ) <slashdot.gurski@org> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:37AM (#14992719) Homepage
            No! 32 bits is too small! We'll have to go right to...128 bits!

            *gasp* 128-bits? Is that wise?

            What's the matter, Colonel Sanders? Chicken?

            (No, I have no idea why that popped into my head)
          • by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <plugwash@nospam.p10link.net> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:30PM (#14993787) Homepage
            In fact, every machine on the internet could be given a unique 32 bit number. Then you could connect to it using that number as the name. That would be awesome!

            the trouble with using ip addresses directly is they are too close to the physical network infrastructure and as such not very portable (unless you own a very large private block.....).

            also combined with name based virtual hosting using domain names allows sites to be combined onto one server and later split up again if nessacery without huge wastage of IP space.

            Finally one dns name can map to multiple machines at once either in a round robin fassion or based on the network location of the users dns resolver (which is usually quite close to the user).
      • by Varitek ( 210013 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:17AM (#14992795)
        JANET (the Joint Academic Network) used to use X.25, which used reverse domain names, if I recall correctly.
        You do. My email address used to be [user]@uk.ac.swan.pyr
        It also used HORRIBLE addressing notation. Essex University's DEC 10 (which ran the first ever massively multi-user adventure game, or rather three of them) had an address of A2206411411.
        That was a boon to to us mudders, though. You could connect directly from the PAD in each terminal room to a MUD on JANet, without having to log on to an intermediate computer with a TCP/IP connection. Handy for when my account was suspended during the vacations.
        (Yes, I really do remember that.)
        I used to remember 5 or 6 of those. MUDS, Monochrome, talkers.
      • Re:A true Brit. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MROD ( 101561 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @06:21AM (#14993126) Homepage
        Actually, the two items you mention aren't linked at all.

        The X25/X29 PAD addressing thing was very much akin to using the Internet without a DNS, that's all. A PAD was merely a terminal server which gave you a command line access. I've used TCP/IP terminal servers which were very similar.

        The naming convention used in the UK for e-mail (which was supported long after the transition to TCP/IP) was purely that, an e-mail address convention. At the time it was decided upon the ARPAnet were making their own decision and opted for the opposite to the UK (and New Zealand). C'est la vie.

        Before JANET transitioned to TCP/IP it was "interesting" keeping the mail system up to date. You had a special version of the Sendmail config called UK-Sendmail which had a list of every JANET mail server address. What fun!

        Anyway, I always thought that ARPAnet got it the wrong way around for the domainnames as it's easier to parse a big-endian address. e.g. uk.ac.ucl.ts means, it's in the UK.. ok.. look that up and pass the message on.. then once in the UK, it's an "ac" academic address, pass it to the mail server which deals with that, and so on. Just like routing packets. :-)
    • by daeg ( 828071 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:44PM (#14992488)
      The "dot" would be implicit, "com expediAAAAAAHHH!" Instead of "google dot co dot uk" it would be "uk-co google". The "dot" could be explicit if needed for clarity. And actually, it would end up being "uk-com".
    • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:05AM (#14992654)
      Domain names are to make remember addresses easier (instead of numerical addresses which they in turn are used to look up).

      But how would:

      com.ebay/
      com.amazon/
      org.slashdot/

      have been easier to remember? Or really easier technically overall?

      On a second thought, it would have been:

      org.dotslash/

      But still.
  • TLDs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by user24 ( 854467 ) on Friday March 24, 2006 @11:40PM (#14992480) Homepage
    "I don't think we've gained anything from the .biz or .info domains - only that a few companies have benefited financially"

    at least someone realises this.

    If i had my way i'd redo the whole domain system; the distinctions between TLDs are totally irrelevent these days.
    That or enforce the distinctions, so that only ISPs can have .nets, only charities .orgs, etc etc.
    • Won't work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rs79 ( 71822 ) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:27AM (#14992582) Homepage
      ""I don't think we've gained anything from the .biz or .info domains - only that a few companies have benefited financially"

      at least someone realises this.

      If i had my way i'd redo the whole domain system; the distinctions between TLDs are totally irrelevent these days.
      That or enforce the distinctions, so that only ISPs can have .nets, only charities .orgs, etc etc."


      The purpose of a domain name is to make it easy for poeple. Computers don't care, they use IP addresses and the DNS is simpy a way to make easy to rememeber names that are automatically converted to IP addresses by software.

      There is no taxonomy or more correctly, ontology, behind domain names. They're arbitrary strings of characters. There is no meaning whatsoever in the TLD, that's sad articfact of the way things were; they should not ideally have any meaning.

      NSI under the original Internic cooperative agreement tried for many years to enforce the .NET rule of "internet infrastructural addresses only". It was impossible. Poeple who wanted to cheat the system always found ways and the harder NSI made it the more difficult it was for legitimate users to get .NET addresses.

      TLDS should be meaningful, but arbitrary. And pretending any sort of classification system can me made out of it belies two decades of expereince with the way we name computers on the network.

      Sir Tim may be a Sir but he's dead wrong about this expansion of tld space. Would you find it easier to remember (and yes, there are times you'll rememeber and type in, instead of looking something up in a search engine) company.biz or perhaps company.info because that was available when perhapes the only thing available in .COM was "i-my-e-companynicheproduct.com"?

      Typically the internet solves problems of scarcity (.com names) by creating new resources, not by regulating old ones.

      • by user24 ( 854467 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:02PM (#14993677) Homepage
        "There is no taxonomy or more correctly, ontology, behind domain names."
        ? um, yes, there is. it's just that no-one adheres to it (myself included).
        Before you answer, wonder if there's any non-arbitrary relationship between the proposed .xxx TLD and it's content.

        "Would you find it easier to remember...."
        I think what STBL is suggesting is a complete rewrite of the way DNS works, according to his semantic web vision. Perhaps search engines would be a thing of the past, perhaps URLs would (though that's unlikely, given that he invented them (or more accurately URIs)).

        But the important thing to note is that he (and I in my comment above) isn't suggesting a fix to make DNS better. He's suggesting a whole reorganisation of the way the web works, which will also involve a new DNS system. He's said several times that he's not entirely happy with the way the web has come together.

        You can't apply his potential solution to the current web. His solution would only work in a web that's fundamentally different to the one we're using now.
    • by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:59AM (#14992642)
      I've owned a .org for seven years now. I intend it to be for a non-profit charity, whenever I'm rich enough to found one. I'm not yet. =)

      I wouldn't want it taken away because I'm not able to use it for its intended purpose at this time. There's no guarantee someone else would be as nice about it.
    • by Snover ( 469130 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:16AM (#14992793) Homepage
      nit: .com was supposed to be for commercial use. .net was supposed to be for networks. .org was supposed to be the Everything Else TLD -- for personal sites, not-for-profits, everything. Didn't quite work out that way because registration was open to everyone. I think the reason .com is now generally used as the first choice for domain names is because of the heavy influence of commercial advertising, but it wasn't intended to be that way.
    • by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:48AM (#14992842) Homepage
      I'm a membeer of LASFS, this world's oldest science fiction club. For years, we've used lasfs.org, both for our website and email to club officers. Recently, it's gotten so bombarded by spam that we've registered lasfs.info. Going to www.lasfs.org just redirects you to www.lasfs.info, now, and there are no longer any MX records for lasfs.org email addresses; they're all lasfs.info. It's a shame, really, because we really are a registered non-profit orinazation, but .info works as the website's there for information purposes.
    • by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @03:50AM (#14992943)
      "I don't think we've gained anything from the .biz or .info domains - only that a few companies have benefited financially"

      Oh, man. My boss got sucked up in the hype around that and had me (over my objections) enter the lotteries, sometimes several times through different domain name services, for a dozen variations on our company name, plus a bunch of other words somewhat related, for both .info and .biz. All of the ones that we won he has now let lapse. Thousands of dollars spent for nothing.

      The only thing I got out of it was my email address on every domain-name spam list in existence. Repeated several times for each domain name I applied for. Big mistake not to use a temporary address for that.

    • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Saturday March 25, 2006 @05:03AM (#14993016) Homepage Journal

      The following story is true, though extraordinarily sad.

      At the company where I used to work, they registered all TLDs for their name. We had .com, .net, .org, .biz, etc.

      One day, our chief marketing goober decided that .biz was going to be the next "in" thing on the Internet, and we would be one of the first companies to capitalize on it. So we had all of our business cards chaged, our mailers, our letterhead... everything. We were explicitly told never to use the .com domain name in our business dealings, it was .biz. We, the IT gurus, begged and implored them not to do this, that it would cause more trouble in the end than it was worth, and that the only companies that use .biz are fly-by-night companies that grab the .biz equivalent of famous .com names so that they can rip people off.

      Who do you think they listened to?

      Long story short: Within a few months, after our customers, suppliers, vendors, and lots of other really, really important people started complaining that their e-mails to us were bouncing back and e-mails from us were not being received because spam blockers were automatically assuming that our .biz address either weren't valid, our chief marketing goober decided to "spend more time with his family," our old business cards, letterhead, etc. was dug out, and we were instructed never to use the .biz domain name again.

  • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:08AM (#14992660) Journal
    The symantic web, as discussed, must rely on classification. To my knowledge, there is no standard for classification of information to fit data into that symantic web. Does anyone know how that is supposed to work? To my knowledge, such attempts fall over when trying to classify even the simplest of things, such as chairs. The types, descriptions, and formats of chairs and information about chairs outweighs any attempt to share that information across the entire Internet. A chair in the middle of China can be totally different from most or all of the chairs from any given store in the western world. The fan-out or spread of information for any given key word or identifier is so huge that it becomes impossible to manage, and even in the symantic web, a search for chair returns about the same as a google search does now.

    What am I missing?
    • by MikeSty ( 890569 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:55AM (#14992750) Homepage
      That would just be so black and yellow and give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling. Only the feeling you get from, you know, knowing you're protected by Symantec and all ...

      startkeylogger
    • by Narphorium ( 667794 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:11AM (#14992780)
      To my understanding, the semantic web doesn't attempt to map everything onto one global ontology. I see no reason why people wouldn't be able to publish multiple definitions of "chair" without somehow breaking the semantic web. There are features is most modern metedata formats to define relationships between similar objects so that a company in the US could define their version of a chair but link it to another definition of a chair at a museum in China simply by stating that the two object are similar. Obviously the company and the museum would have a different perspective on what makes a chair but in most cases there would be at least some overlap.

      The beauty of having the entire framwork built on top of XML is that it allows you to parse through documents that your application may only partially understand and still manage to extract some relevant data. This means that if your ChairBot application is crawling around the semantic web and comes across several overlapping definitions of a chair it may not be able to recognize every single property of every single chair but its still much better than blindly following HTML hyperlinks around and trying to guess if something is a chair or not.

      • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:22PM (#14993989) Journal
        Thanks, Okay, I see that there is benefit, but the classification of data via metadata is still not organized. The thousdands of types of chairs added to what people think are chairs, would still not narrow down a search for chairs. There are some 'artistic' chairs that are just very odd IMO. So sticking with this one example, a search for chairs would still bring up more information than could be sorted through easily. Granted, metadata makes the search smaller, but classification is still left up to the search algorithm, and more importantly, left up to people to classify their own data.

        I search for things and would like to be able to specify 'ignore pages with abstract only' and metadata could help there, but on other things, simple things, its still seems like a 'pot luck' search result.
    • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @03:09AM (#14992875)
      None of that matters for different reason: people can understand untagged content, therefore they won't bother to tag. It's just that simple.

      Oh yeah, and tag spam.

  • by cpeikert ( 9457 ) <cpeikertNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:14AM (#14992669) Homepage
    Best comment in the interview:

    "Most browsers have certificates set up and secure connections, but the browser view only shows a padlock - it doesn't tell you who owns the certificate."

    I still can't believe that, to this very day, there is no major browser that displays the right information about a certificate by default! This is the whole point of a certificate: it tells you that paypal.com actually belongs to a real-world entity named "PayPal Inc."

    At the very least, when connected via SSL to a site with a valid cert, the browser address bar should have an extra line that names the real-world entity. A yellow padlock and location bar tell you nothing about who you're really talking to. You shouldn't have to manually examine the certificate to find out this information.

    Does anyone have any idea why even Firefox, with all its other great usability and security innovations, still gets this basic thing wrong??
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:22AM (#14992689)
      Opera shows it. In the right hand side of the URL field, it shows a padlock and the name of the signing authority. Great for ebay.
    • by ggvaidya ( 747058 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:49AM (#14992734) Homepage Journal
      Opera does [flickr.com].
    • by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:47AM (#14992835) Journal
      We made a mistake back in the day. Certificates are serving two purposes: One is to encrypt the data, one is to verify identity.

      This makes it a major pain when you just want to encrypt data without claiming to be anyone in particular, since you have to jump through a lot of hoops both on server and client side to get it working. The browser gets bitchy about a certificate that isn't signed by any of its roots, even though it may very well be the case that nobody cares.

      If we clearly thought about these two aspects, and separated them, it would become clear that A: we need a better way to just say "secure the damn connection" without claiming to be anybody and B: When a site is claiming to be somebody, it hardly makes sense to not show the claim clearly to the user. But since the concepts are all mushed up, you get a lock icon that sort of covers half the situation, mostly, and few people really realize there's a problem.
      • by agurk ( 193950 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @05:08AM (#14993023)
        You must need to know WHO your talking with to create a secure connection.

        It is no point in having a secure connection to a person you do not know who is.

        You cannot know if you are talking to a man in the middle or you are actually talking to the man you want to be communicating with.

        To get the ww2 version of this:

        You got an ubersecure connection with a german spy which got an ubersecure connection to the man you think you are communicating with. Then the german spy can listen in and you nor the person you want to communicate with will know about the spy. All the spy has to do is to relay all information.
        • Well you are right, you need to know the identity of one signer of the encryption keys to be able to verify that it is the correct key. I think there are things called key-signing parties(events) for that purpose.

          But the parent is somewhat right too, because actually you would first have to make sure that you have correctly established the identity of the root key-signing enitity over a secure handshake, which often is not the case.

          On the other hand, with an extended web of trust, man in the middle attacks become somewhat hypothetical, it is more likely you would be tricked into using bad keys instead.
      • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @10:29AM (#14993418) Homepage Journal

        We made a mistake back in the day.

        We made many mistakes, but this wasn't one of them.

        Certificates are serving two purposes: One is to encrypt the data, one is to verify identity.

        Those two purposes are the *same* purpose. There is a distinction here, but you're drawing it in the wrong place.

        SSL-sytle secure connections do two things: Encrypt data and authenticate data. After establishing session keys, the data that is sent both directions is encrypted and has cryptographic authentication codes (MACs) attached. Those two things are different, and the two parties communicating may each require one or both.

        If either side is sending sensitive data that should not be revealed to others, then that data should be encrypted. But if the data is sensitive and should not be revealed to others, why would you send it to a random stranger? Verification of the recipient's identity is crucial. If the client is sending the sensitive data, this verification is generally accomplished via SSL validation of the server certificate. If the server is sending it, it's usually provided by performing a username/password authentication within the SSL tunnel, though it can (and more often should!) be done with client side digital certificates.

        If either side is sending important data that doesn't necessarily need to be encrypted, but does need to be authenticated, then that data should be MACed. SSL does that, as well as encryption. But if the data is important and its provenance must be verified, then the identity of the sender must be identified. For the identity verification needed for data authentication, we use the same verification mechanisms: cert to identify the server when it's the sender, and username/password to identify the client when it's the sender.

        There is no point in encrypting data to strangers, or authenticating data from strangers. Identify verification is absolutely essential to all of it.

        There is some point in separating encryption from data authentication, because sometimes you need the latter but not the former. Even in those cases, though, encryption never hurts (especially since IP communications are all point-to-point anyway, since multicast doesn't work), and encrypting unnecessarily doesn't cost anything, so it's simpler just to do both.

        *With* identity verification. Keeping in mind that DNS does not provide any identity verification, and that even if it did, the multi-hop routing of IP packets means there are plenty of opportunities for men in the midddle [wikipedia.org].

        • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @12:45PM (#14993849) Homepage Journal
          >why would you send it to a random stranger? Verification of the recipient's identity is crucial.

          That's a good explanation and it's accurate. It does have a hidden assumption though.

          A lot of security analysis takes as an axiom that the threat is an intelligent and determined adversary who will crawl in through any weakness. That axiom may seem self-evident because of infosec's military heritage: if your opponent is willing to hire Alan Turing and invent the digital computer in order to read your ciphertext, you daren't leave any chink in your armor.

          If you're a civilian and willing to gamble that you'll only be a random target and that your opponents will always go for the softest targets, then you might decide on a self-signed certificate. You might believe that sniffing Internet traffic is so much easier than running a man-in-the-middle attack that you could just take your chances on MiTM.

          You'd be wrong in today's environment, though. Phishing means you really have to worry about who a public key really belongs to. Not that certs are helping very much.

          Quite a few people are proposing a compromise trust model like ssh has, where the browser UI would change so as to warn you when you're about to encrypt to an unexpected public key.

          • Quite a few people are proposing a compromise trust model like ssh has, where the browser UI would change so as to warn you when you're about to encrypt to an unexpected public key.


            This model has some good things going for it, but I don't see it as very useful for stopping phishing.

            Phishers don't use the same domain name as the legitimate site. So the browser won't warn you "the key for paypal.com has changed! danger!" If the phisher bothers to self-sign at all, at most the browser will say "you're talking to a site you haven't visited before." Which is exactly the message the user got when she visited paypal.com for the first time, and for every other new site she visits. The user will become completely innoculated to these kinds of messages. (The model works better for ssh, because most people only ssh to a few boxes in their life.)

            Even worse, the user only gets these warning if the phisher uses self-signed certs in the first place, which he has little reason to do. He can make his site look like "the real thing" in almost every way (except for the tiny browser or yellow location bar), and that's the root of the problem.
      • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @10:47AM (#14993460) Homepage
        If you don't know who you're sending it to, why do you care if it's encrypted or not? Yes, it does protect against read-only interceptions but not against man-in-the-middle. I think it would just give people a false sense of security.
      • by mabu ( 178417 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @11:22AM (#14993558)
        Add the Netcraft Toolbar [netcraft.com] to your browser and not only will you have information on each site you visit on-screen, but it also blocks access to known phishing sites.
      • by petermgreen ( 876956 ) <plugwash@nospam.p10link.net> on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:08PM (#14993941) Homepage
        This makes it a major pain when you just want to encrypt data without claiming to be anyone in particular, since you have to jump through a lot of hoops both on server and client side to get it working. The browser gets bitchy about a certificate that isn't signed by any of its roots, even though it may very well be the case that nobody cares.

        right so you've got yourself a nice encrypted connection to the man in the middle. You need some mechanism to tell you that the person you think you are linked with is the person you are really linked with or the encryption isn't a whole lot of help.

        theres the web of trust system but that has problems of its own (e.g. that you have to trust people between you and the target who don't have any legal contracts to uphold and could well be corrupted).

        also i'm not sure why the padlock icon is insufficiant, it means that provided the root CAs are doing thier job properly and there aren't nasty browser issues (e.g. the long username url trick) the site i'm talking too really is the legitimate owner of paypal.com. Do i really need to know any more than that?
  • by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @01:56AM (#14992753) Homepage Journal
    At the moment a lot of company knowledge is held on spreadsheets and Powerpoint slides, because companies need to see summaries. But the data has lost its semantics, so it's not usable.

    Tell me about it.

  • by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:23AM (#14992805) Journal
    get rid of the dot notation entirely if you're not going to admit you just used the domain naming system that pre-existed the web

    if the server name isn't going to be the name of a server, then you can do this:

    http://uk/org/bcs/members

    and now everything is a hierarchical pathname that is resolved to a fqdn internally and nobody needs to worry that bcs.org.uk is a node on the network and members is a service on that node...

    add it to the pile of big-woops! ideas along with ken thompson's anally elided 'e' in "creat()"...
  • by LittleBigScript ( 618162 ) on Saturday March 25, 2006 @02:29AM (#14992813) Homepage Journal
    This got me thinking how strange it is for the http address to be in the address bar, instead of something like what tinyweb does. Odd how Netscape or Microsoft didn't do something like that years ago.
  • They would have been "Comdots" instead!

The F-15 Eagle: If it's up, we'll shoot it down. If it's down, we'll blow it up. -- A McDonnel-Douglas ad from a few years ago

Working...