And with chrome leading it (IIRC) and other browsers following, end users don't even see http or https:// prefixes in their browser bar anymore. Further adding to confusion.
I don't see a reason for adding these new TLDs other than a cash grab.
hiding the protocol prefixes was always a bad idea. the .zip domain would be an argument to revert that. but i don't have high hopes.
But domains and protocols are orthogonal?
W W W PERIOD FOO PERIOD ZIP
Re:New TLDs: Not Bad
by mock-possum on Sunday May 14, 2023 @04:11AM
(#35936287)
SLASH DOT DASH DOT SLASH DOT DASH DOT SLASH DOT DASH DOT COM DOT COM DOT COM
Re:New TLDs: Not Bad
by simlevesque on Saturday May 13, 2023 @03:52PM
(#35932058)
The domain has no relation to the protocol. I can own domains and never use http or https on them.
Right but if you're not hosting Web content then you wouldn't want it linkified in a Web context. If you're using it for something else, e.g. SMTP, then you'd represent the domain name differently as [email protected]
Re:New TLDs: Not Bad
by hammyhavoc on Sunday May 14, 2023 @08:13AM
(#35937403)
Why wouldn't someone follow the standard of prefixing it with an appropriate subdomain? E.g., `smtp` or `imap` if it's something they're going to be discussing publicly?
Furthermore, why not use port numbers as a suffix? That's how we can have umpteen services across different protocols on a single domain.
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)://.