Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Danny Ayers <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:27:19 +0600
Can't say it irritates me particularly as the target audience will be 99%
using http:// (that got highlighted, BTW) in a browser, they type in the
string and get the intended page - for this 99% the protocol is redundant.
Many people call 'telephones' 'phones', even though there are also
'headphones' and 'microphones' - do they need educating too?
What could be fun though would be if my browser would first try
http://www.ourwebsite.com and if that failed tried ftp://www.ourwebsite.com
and so on, bringing up the appropriate tool if a match was found...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 29 December 2000 23:51
> To: Jonathan Borden; Paul Tchistopolskii; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: simple question on namespaces.
> > 4) a string of the form "http://foo.org/bar.txt#baz" is a URI reference
> > 5) a string of the form "www.whatever.com/foo.bar" is NOT a URI
> Does anyone else get irritated that the rest of the world seems to think
> that 4 and 5 are the same? I see lots and lots of advertisements in
> magazines and on television that have 'URLs' of the form
with no preceding 'http://'. In fact I'm even more irritated now that
Outlook Express has highlighted the www. as if it were a link...
It seems to me that only a small number of people in the world think that 4
and 5 are different. Perhaps more education is necessary... or maybe it's
already too late... the mainstream browser accepts 'URLs' of the format
shown in 5 :-(