> Since the Internet is used for much more than just http traffic, it _is_
> reasonable to uniquely identify those services with a standard prefix.
>
> Mitch Miller, Omaha, NE

I think I understand your reasoning, but I have to side with Wagner on this
one.  "http://" already serves as a standard prefix, and being a genuine
standard rather than just an unofficial convention, it by necessity always
refers to a web url and never anything else.  There's nothing to prevent a
machine with a host name of www from providing ftp, gopher, mail, or any
other services not related to the www.  The protocol prefix makes a positive
identifier that will not create confusion when other services are provided by
the same host.

It would be interesting to tell a room full of users "Browse to aim.aol.com"
and see how many go to www.aim.aol.com instead (these are actually two
different web sites).  This is a "standard" the world would be better off
without.  It does nothing that isn't already done better by existing standards,
and creates additional complexity and limitations without providing any real
benefit in exchange.  It would like adding "555" after the "800" (or now 888
and 877 also) in US toll free phone numbers so people will know that they're
toll free.  An ineficient way of doing something that doesn't need to be done
at all.

But it has so much momentum behind it now, I guess we're stuck with it.


---
                                        Peace,
                                        William Kitchen
                                        bill@iglobal.net

The future is ours to create.