what's good about a geographic/city split anyway?), why not have
Top level geographies are most likely to map to organizations willing to
maintain subdelegations. Other than that, it's all arbitrary other than
that it's necessary to have a deep tree.
I already know that U.S. companies put under states are going to feel
overspecified. I can already hear the reasons why IBM.COM.NY.US is
supposedly "wrong" since IBM is a nationwide, no, worldwide company.
On the other hand they're incorporated in New York and the point isn't
to have the name make sense, it's to keep the hierarchy from flattening.
When 25,000,000 companies have domain names, there will be at least three
labels in most of those top level names. It cannot be helped.
> what's good about a geographic/city split anyway?), why not have
Top level geographies are most likely to map to organizations willing to
maintain subdelegations. Other than that, it's all arbitrary other than
that it's necessary to have a deep tree.
I already know that U.S. companies put under states are going to feel
overspecified. I can already hear the reasons why IBM.COM.NY.US is
supposedly "wrong" since IBM is a nationwide, no, worldwide company.
In the .ca domain, companies with offices in two or more provinces can
have a top level name, i.e. ibm.ca. With offices in two or more cities in
a single province they can have a name at the next level, i.e. widget.ab.ca.
If they are in one city only, their name must include the city as in
joes-eats.vancouver.bc.ca.
When 25,000,000 companies have domain names, there will be at least three
labels in most of those top level names. It cannot be helped.
You could use a system similar to .ca which allows you to remove nonsense
geographic labels but still elegantly handles the millions of small
businesses with presence in a single town.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com