Original text:
The need for the term "fully qualified domain name" comes from the existence of partially qualified domain names, which are names where one or more of the earliest labels in the ordered list are <del> omitted (for example, "www").  Such relative names are understood only by context. </del>  This term and its equivalent, "hostname", have been widely used but are not defined in RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123, or RFC2181.  The

Reviewer comments:
The current definition says: The example is ambiguous. It should instead say:
PR is at URL
FWIW I still find it confusing. proposed alternative: The need for the term "fully qualified domain name" comes from the existence of partially qualified domain names, which are names where one or more of the later labels in the desired name are omitted. For example, a user may enter "www" and rely on the application or operating system to append an appropriate domain suffix, turning it into "URL". Such partially qualified names are understood only by context.
Hi, I’m a bit confused by “earliest” and “latest” here— Paul’s wording ("earliest labels in the ordered list”) made sense to me but Duane changed it (to “later labels in the desired list”). I’d suggest making it explicitly refer to "earlier labels in the ordering of nodes from the root of the tree,” because otherwise “earlier” or “later” both make my head hurt. Suzanne
My thinking was that as I read the name (e.g. left-to-right) the "www" part is earliest and the "URL" part is later. The way we talk about ordering of labels seems sort of fundamental and it would be a shame to have it buried in this one definition of FQDN. Its not really a terminology issue, but is there some way to make it more prominent and apply to the document as a whole?
Understood, was just thinking that it’s not obvious whether we mean reading order or evaluation order or something else unless we say so. Hadn't thought of it, but yes. This is where I’m reminded there’s not really a definition of “domain name” out there to incorporate. There’s been a proposed definition kicking around for awhile, which was briefly discussed somewhere (the arcing list?) and I tried to get Ed Lewis to add to draft-lewis-domain-name. I don’t think this document is the place to propose one not previously found in an RFC, although I’d be fine with the WG considering the question if the editors disagree. Suzanne
There is in fact a definition of "domain name" to incorporate. Under "Global DNS", it says: We use "first" there, and we use it in a way that is the opposite of "earliest" in the current wording for FQDN, and thus the need for change. Duane's proposal is better than what we have now, but we can maybe even do better. How about:

Revised text:
The need for the term "fully qualified domain name" comes from the existence of partially qualified domain names, which are names where one or more of the earliest labels in the ordered list are  <ins> omitted (for example, a name of "www" derived from "www.example.net").  Such relative names are understood only by context. </ins> This term and its equivalent, "hostname", have been widely used but are not defined in RFC1034, RFC1035, RFC1123, or RFC2181.  The