You flame people for being anon. They log in and your flame them for logging in. I and others will no doubt not log-in in future given your attitude and behavior on this board.I do wish that you and sock puppets of your ilk (or is that silk?) wouldn't, but I know that is unlikely. Flames? Those aren't flames, you should get out more. Just trying to spark a clue that spreading vaporware in such a confined space is not a Good Thing.
Well erm fnord I hate to be the one to tell you this but that is how the Internet and web browsers work. Please, PLEASE get a clue. Even a basic one.
See Dan's and various anonymous non-flackperson(s) comments. Character settings for a GUI OS, an application run on that OS, a character entry field of that application, and internet protocols are all decidedly not the same thing. This may give you/XTNS a basic clue as to which part of your code is broken.
XTNS exceeded 10,000 names on day-one of release yesterday from what I hear. So again, get a clue before you write.You really do think I'm clueless don't you? You expect me to believe that XTNS has an opening day (not their first one, is that like a third annual going out of business sale?) with registration numbers that rival that for any and all new ICANN TLDs, newly repurposed or redelegated ccTLDs, new.net (which received much wider initial coverage), or any other roll-out of "domains". I don't think anyone is that clueless. They're also not clueless enough to fall for these multiple posts from untraceable sources about things they have heard from undisclosed sources. That was used in their previous incarnation and it all turned out to be bogus.
What?! You are completely mad. Appears to "who" exactly? Steve Chadima who was writing out of spite and envy at the launch of XTNS by his ex-CTO? Didnt you read the many tens of corrections to Chadima's absurd statement?I'm not completely mad, just a little angry that such scams don't impode more quickly due to their own internal inconsistencies. Yes I read all those tens of posts, will you use them as evidence for a repetitive stress injury claim? So the rumor is true that Tim Langdell used to work for new.net? Hmmm, I can see how Mr. Langdell might not be a good fit.
I must admit to being impressed with those new.net individuals whom I've noticed online in various ways. Steve Chadima did well in the public portion of ICANN's Stockholm meeting and here, Andy Duff's diary from Montevideo was as enlightening as anything to have emanated from the ICANN black hole, Leonard Amabile gives clear and concise explanations on new.net's message board and elsewhere (dealing with the unfair claim that their plugin is spyware, and I say that as one who first made that claim), and I assume Patrick Greenwell is the individual who replaced Mr. Langdell, Patrick's occasional posts to the DNSO GA list and the now defunct NSI domain-policy list were always spot on. These individuals seem to be more professional, technically clued, articulate, open, and witty, than whomever works for XTNS (or ICANN for that matter). I don't own any new.net names and short of some new wrinkle I don't see them breaking into the big time, which is too bad. ICANN needs to be made (I almost said kept) honest. -g