31–40 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which redirects to bing.com, proving that they really have no use for the .bing TLD other than to prevent someone else from grabbing it.
Imagine the clamour of people who want to be associated with Bing The real problem is can I still type weirdfilename.exe into the browser bar and get to a search engine?
Whoever invented selling 1 row in a database for massive amounts of money per year was a genius
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is 2K a limit these days?
Chromium based browsers! > The Google Chrome browser supports a maximum length of a web page URL of 2 MB (2048 characters) in size. taken from [0]. Do note that this is a restriction created by the browser developers. In theory a URL can be of arbitrary length. Some browsers (like Firefox) do comply with this, though they might now show the full URL to the user, cutting it off after a certain number of characters. [0…
Your marketing team will charge ahead with migrating all your product.business.com sites to just product.business
You'll get half a year into that migration before someone asks about shared domain cookies. Oh, login.business.com dropped an SSO cookie on business.com?
After that you'll get the lovely request - you work with the browser people, can't we just edit the standard to drop a cookie on a TLD?
I would tolerate the ICANN TLD money-grabbing scheme, but the "new" TLDs are a little more than an indication of bad taste. I can't be the only one to dislike anything more than 3 characters in a TLD, like .cloud or .engineering.
I’m never going to remember a domain with a silly tld. I don’t necessarily think badly of the company when I see a link to one (I mostly think “fuck you ICANN”) but it is anti-memorable.
There is already http://microsoft.bing . See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom... .
Which redirects to bing.com, proving that they really have no use for the .bing TLD other than to prevent someone else from grabbing it.
and even if it was available to register, they can reserve words for their own usage before launching it
and if you mean, someone else actually doing the paperwork to get the .bing tld for them, it wouldnt ever be approved.
I would tolerate the ICANN TLD money-grabbing scheme, but the "new" TLDs are a little more than an indication of bad taste. I can't be the only one to dislike anything more than 3 characters in a TLD, like .cloud or .engineering.
You can slap a joehardware.com on the back of your van, or a local TLD, and people will know that it's the address of your website. Now do the same with joehardware.builders, people have no glue as to what that might be. It doesn't even help to write www.joehardware.builders, that somehow more confusing.
No, the issue with the new/generic/vanity TLDs is that they've lost all meaning. They lack context.
The real issue with the vanity TLDs, and many of the newer ones in general, is that they have zero recognition. They are most worthless. You can slap a joehardware.com on the back of your van, or a local TLD, and people will know that it's the address of your website. Now do the same with joehardware.builders, people have no glue as to what that might be. It doesn't even help to write www.joehardware.builders, that s…