magnet:?xt=urn:btih:abac45ddab754409d67e99fa661db98d31cbfa70
>>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