Hostname Naming Compliance

[Kevin Darcy]

Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <49A755BF.9030106 at 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