[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]
I would not be concerned with the domain name oreo-dories.com for a website
about oreo dories. The second and third examples do not involve a second
level domain using the oreo string, so they are not relevant to the
discussion at hand. (That aside, neither are of concern.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 1:33 PM
> To: Ellen Rony
> Cc: email@example.com; Hartman, Steve
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]
> Steve Hartman wrote:
> > I am not sure of the point you are making. Obviously, if oreo.com is
> > excluded, then so should oreos.com and other non-material variants.
> Something to give you pause:
> "Oreo dories, of which there are five recorded species around New Zealand,
> deepwater relatives of the true dories. The New Zealand fishery is based
> the black oreo, so far known only in New Zealand, and the smooth oreo."
> Something else:
> Do you really want to step on this guy?
> Something else:
> Figure 1. An OreO as part of the HTTP stream
> We refer to our HTTP transducers as OreOs (with appropriate apologies to
> cookie makers), because the transducer is structured with one `wafer' to
> handle browser-side communication, another `wafer' to handle server-side
> communication, and a functional `filling' in the middle. As illustrated
> below in
> 2, the OreOs take advantage of the HTTP proxy mechanism, essentially
> as a server to the client side and as a client to the server side. Because
> full URL is delivered intact to the OreO, the filling can use the scheme,
> server, server-relative URL, or request data in its processing.