{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreie7zoc7w5xqxb4hc5jkcmeb5ixs77j5v3hf5bkbg2kw5svtmr3luu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkos7z7c3kt2"
  },
  "path": "/t/pre-rfc-dns-domains-as-package-namespaces/24202?page=3#post_44",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-30T04:06:20.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "tags": [
    "crates.io"
  ],
  "textContent": "While it is _often_ true that the simply named crate is well implemented and suffices for most purposes, that's not always true.\n\nFor instance, as noted earlier in this thread there are numerous crates for dealing with http servers, and the crate named `http` is not necessarily the best for it.\n\nWhen I need a crate for something, I search for it on crates.io and look at the top couple results to figure out which meet my requirements and seem well implemented. What those crates are _called_ barely matters to me (and I think most rust developers would agree with me).\n\nSo, while I do think that there are reasons that namespaces crate named could be a good idea, I don't think \"so that crates can use the 'canonical' name\" is a good argument for it. I really see no difference between using a crate called `jmillikin.github.io/fuse` and a crate called `jmillikin_fuse`, and would not assume any difference in quality between either of them and the crate just called `fuse` based simply on their names.",
  "title": "[Pre-RFC] DNS domains as package namespaces"
}