magnet:?xt=urn:btih:abac45ddab754409d67e99fa661db98d31cbfa70
Great thread. Excellent post. Would read again. URIs are my favorite short-form genre.
Can we get a tracker or ten for that? Whatever it is, 24 hours of peer exchange hasn't turned up anyone in my peer cloud of '80s mecha enthusiasts who happens to have the torrent file.
I wonder why every net protocol you see linked does the stupid web browser // thing but magnet
anyway, here is a certified [DQN] quality torrent [EHT PERSONALIZED TORRENT - DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE] https://ehtracker.org/get/1045523/80b70fc90825533cba01e9ad6d803ba3395f74ba.torrent
>>4
The earliest piece of evidence I can find that references protocols other than http: and uses "//" is RFC 1738. They say
>The scheme specific data start with a double slash "//" to indicate
>that it complies with the common Internet scheme syntax.
by which they appear to mean "The WWW is really hot right now, so we're just going to copy Berners-Lee's URLs".
Also, http://magnet-uri.sourceforge.net/magnet-draft-overview.txt says
>FYI, EDonkey URIs violate many provisos of RFCs 1738 and
>2396, including the use of "//" at the front of a non-
>hierarchical namespace and the use of illegal/disfavored
>(when not escaped) characters
It's a bit of a jump from "common Internet scheme syntax" to "hierarchical namespace", but it sort of makes sense.
As to the torrent, thank you. I am now assured of its DQN quality.
>>6
I don't follow. Suppose that the format for http links just dropped the // completely. What's an example of an formerly unambiguous URL which would be ambiguated by this change?
>>7
Most browsers today even detect and hide/correct this because it should not be your job as the end user to unfuck the protocol end of URLs when you are implicitly only much interested in HTTP.
Nonetheless, a lot of the Internet runs on pure inertia and ad-hoc trying shit out. That many Internet "standards" are technically just IETF RFCs is not a mistake. "Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was...."
>>7
Nothing, the leading // are the one thing that the W3C's supreme leader has publicly come out as regretting the most.
None of it really matters, the web standard is complete garbage that was aptly compared to drowning in a sea of pufferfish that are pregnant with freddy krugar.
>>7-10
It definitely is disambiguation in a purely technical sense.
Consider a hyperlink residing on the page http://4-ch.net/dqn/foo.html. The following hrefs will all direct your browser to the neighbouring file bar.html:
If // were not mandated to be at the beginning of an absolute URL, cases 1 and 3 are still unambiguous but cases 2 and 4 are hosed. Your browser would have to decide whether or not to visit these pages instead:
2. http://4-ch.net/dqn/4-ch.net/dqn/bar.html
4. http://bar.html
This is why the // is necessary. Not because TBL has a cult of personality.
I hope >>8 and >>9 are ashamed of themselves for attempting to discredit a set of incredibly well thought out communication standards made by a number of incredibly clever people on the basis of a pair of forward slashes. Yes, a lot of the Internet runs on ad-hoc trying shit out, but 99% of this ad-hoc mess is due to people not following standards. (Microsoft, PHP developers of the 90s, Chrome-using web developers of the present, I'm looking at you.)
>>11
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that a relativeURL (in the sense of RFC 1808) could point to a different net location.
>>11
It's not just Chrome, all the major web browsers have implemented their own subset of the standard that isn't in compliance with the whole spec or each other. The issue of browser specific content like activex and all of the "Best viewed from Netscape 3+" pages from the 90's never was unified, it just fails silently now or there's a huge mess of javascript errors because just using more of that cancer of a language is apparently a patch for the standards being bad and poorly implemented. The relatively good standards that are out there excel because they are simple ubiquitous, you pipe from a to b and you can see how and why it's doing that and it's not checking for and doing 30 different things to finish the job, "comprehensive" is a bad word and all that cleverness that led to HTTP/2.0 or even 1.1 seems to have been wasted adding more specific cases than cutting the fat and letting those be implemented with broader strokes. The original Xanadu Hypertext design document was overcomplicated but at least the end user's view of it was something impressive, the current W3C hypertext doc is voynichian and what it accomplishes is mundane, and the IETF's transfer protocol for it accomplishes little for great undue complexity.
>>11
>>8 here. You have delineated some technical considerations quite clearly, but I will not stand here and take that. I answered the question on the emotional level it was asked.
Re-read my statement very carefully, but this time with the understanding that it is a rather high praise of making systems that aren't broken and are hard to break. Never so often does man's hand truly touch things in a manner that it might be mistaken for a work of God, yet here we are.
~5G of OSTs from early type-moon stuff.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1a1ac8dee440899aa26e1af2ee38b2ba375aa0c2&dn=TYPE-MOON%20Sound%20Collection&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fexplodie.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=http%3a%2f%2fopen.nyaatorrents.info%3a6544%2fannounce&tr=http%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com0%2fannounce&tr=http%3a%2f%2ftracker.datorrents.com%3a6969%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fzer0day.ch%3a1337
>>13
Somewhere around the start of the 2010s things were looking up with regards to getting out of the browser-specific hellhole, and then everyone who turned to Chrome when it was superior (it is now more RAM-hungry than other browsers, but of course nobody will listen to such blasphemy) decided that no other browser was worth testing their work on, especially when it came to extended functionality that they didn't realise (or care) was Chrome-specific. We're back where we were when IE6 was still worth worrying about.
As usual on the Internet, the smallest comments garner the lengthiest responses.
>>14
You are most correct; I apologise for misinterpreting your post.
With that out of the way, how about some more torrents?
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:50de0c6a117b3e31ee04316679b88ed513de2d76
Here's the tracker for the OP and this torrent: http://bt1.archive.org:6969/announce
>>19
On your torrent client it should say "edit trackers" or something similar when you've selected one. Add it that way. The 6969 is just the port, lots of trackers use numbers like that or 1337
I was just joking. http typically goes through port 80, as you probably know, >>20
>>23
Dear Cyrus,
Thank you so much for taking the time to reach out and share your kind words about our website. We are truly grateful for your feedback and appreciate the effort you have put into promoting our brand on social media.
We understand the importance of having an active and engaging presence on social media, and we admire your dedication to helping brands build trust through effective management. However, at this time, we are not in need of additional social media services. We appreciate your offer of a free trial, but we will have to respectfully decline.
Thank you again for reaching out and offering your assistance. We wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
Best regards,
Chenel4 Administration