Over time, this can become a convention. Part of the price you pay in using a .zip domain will be that software doesn't auto-linkify it unless you prefix it with http(s)://.
I don't see a reason for adding these new TLDs other than a cash grab.
Furthermore, why not use port numbers as a suffix? That's how we can have umpteen services across different protocols on a single domain.
So, instead of hoping for that, why not search for solutions that actually will stand the test of time and aren't as fragile as "freeze the filename extensions!"
Also one of the really funny parts of this entire debate is the focus on filenames when most average people aren't even aware of their existence. Windows and Mac have hidden them by default for years now. It's only an image if it shows the image thumbnail, it's only a folder if it shows the folder icon, and so on. I bring this up because it shows how fragile this solution is. You can't get people to adhere to the rule of looking out for ".zip" if they don't even know it exists!
It works if you just don't believe a filename extension like .com or .net will be popular in the future. Personally I don't think they will, as people rightly find it annoying if the clash with TLDs.
So no, COM files aren't relevant at all in this discussion.
At any rate, `.com` is a (windows) file extension and we've not been too fussed about that as a TLD for the last 40 years.
www.example.com would be the primary, and example.com redirects to www.example.com
It’s my simple approach to overcome the cognitive overload issue.
.com is also a file extension. It describes an executable format that predates the web.
Better yet, why not just suffix it with a `/` if you're lazy?
The fact that file extensions and TLD's were roughly the same length in the same format wasn't a big issue, when it's generally understood that ".com" and ".edu" are domains, while ".jpg" and ".mp4" are files. (And as the author states ".com" files are rarely seen by users anymore.)
But if the .zip domain takes off, it's just adding a little bit more cognitive load. Sure, hopefully it's usually clear whether somebody's discussing a filename or a domain name from context. But not always, and that's annoying and anti-user.
So really, it's just like... of all the possible TLD's, is there really any benefit to picking ones that are also common filename extensions? Is our economy really going to suffer if we say, hey let's not make things like .txt and .doc into domains as well? There are tons of other TLD's we can create instead.