Re:To www or not www
by karlshea on Saturday March 18, 2017 @07:04PM
(#13903960)
At least we've mostly gotten away from "h-t-t-p-colon-slash-slash..."
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I always thought it was odd when they go with the whole "http://www." voodoo ritual, but then they skip the final slash after the domain.
AFAIK the lack of a path part is allowed in an HTTP URL per RFC2616.
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
> If the abs_path is not present in the URL, it MUST be given as "/" when used as a Request-URI for a resource (section 5.1.2).Browsers may differ on whether they auto-fix schemaless URIs, but they're all required to fix path-less URIs. So it's much "safer" to use them.
Or even worse, "h-t-t-p-colon-backslash-backslash..." from people who were used to saying "c-colon-backslash"
Or worse yet still "forward slash forward slash."
Re:To www or not www
by michaelmior on Saturday March 18, 2017 @09:08PM
(#13904511)
How is forward slash worse? At least that's the correct direction.
Because it's a made up term. It's just called "slash."
More like: solidus and reverse solidus!
Re:To www or not www
by michaelmior on Monday March 20, 2017 @01:21PM
(#13915935)
At least it unambiguously refers to the correct character / as opposed the incorrect character \
Or worse yet, "h-t-t-p colon reverse-backslash reverse-backslash..."
its awesome that URL's can have different protocols. althoug most user/apps will asume http#/www