Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!sq!msb From: msb@sq.UUCP Newsgroups: can.general Subject: Re: The Canadian Domain: Introduction to CA Message-ID: <1987Nov25.131317.26029@sq.uucp> Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 13:13:17 EST Article-I.D.: sq.1987Nov25.131317.26029 Posted: Wed Nov 25 13:13:17 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 02:53:34 EST References: <1987Nov23.095020.13055@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1152@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) Distribution: can Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto Lines: 25 Checksum: 34877 Summary: Make that Ca. Here's a late thought on the matter of the domain name. I "understand, with reluctance" -- I would say great reluctance -- why we can't have the normal abbreviation Can, or even the other standard Cdn, and must have something that looks like California instead. But CASE is not significant in domain names. If we spell it "Ca", it looks a lot LESS like California. (It does look like calcium, but I don't think that will confuse anyone.) The form "ca" would also be acceptable in this respect, but less so, since it looks like "CA" transformed to lower case. Can we establish the precedent that the name will, as a matter of style, normally be spelled as "Ca"? By the way, to Brad's suggestion: > Instead of ON and PQ and AB what's wrong with "Ontario" and "Quebec" and > "Alberta?" Computers are very good at arranging aliases. ... I respond that anything that keeps down the length of mail headers these days is probably good. Especially when the header is of a mailing list message sent to numerous people! Anyway, I'd *rather* see short and well-known abbreviations used when the context is so standardized. Just as /bin is better than /binary, .ON.Ca is better than .Ontario.Canada. Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't be silly -- send it to Canada" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- British postal worker