This tweet led to me to ask why we have // in safe url ?
7 Inventors who came to regret their inventions -
- Tim Berners Lee - the //
Nitter.net “7 Inventors who came to regret their inventions”
This tweet led to me to ask why we have // in safe url ?
7 Inventors who came to regret their inventions -
Nitter.net “7 Inventors who came to regret their inventions”
It’s a valid question. I assume it’s to not ruffle feathers with the IETF and W3C by deviating from long held standards going back probably to FTP in the early 80s.
Tradition goes a long way. It’s better to be right than correct.
We could get away with just one ‘/’ for correctness, but that might be too difficult for users to handle. Changing from ‘https:’ to ‘safe:’ is enough for people to deal with. The ‘//’ keeps things familiar. IMO.
Is any other protocol going to be used on the safe network?
On clearnet, I’ve encountered http,https and in the past ftp.
But I doubt safe will have an ftp equivalent and it’s already secure.
So if it won’t be used, why not get rid of safe:// entirely?
It’s an accepted standard. Parsers everywhere know that :// has a protocol before it. So when I click a link with exp:// my phone knows expo is linked to exp protocol, smb:// is a network share via the samba protocol. We can visit a site with both http and safe links and each will open with the appropriate app because of the protocol identifier. It’s a compact identifier with quite a bit of information. Maybe not all entirely in the identifier, but linked to it.
I’m gonna make this a seperate post.
I can actually imagine one instance and that is to have protocols support other languages like:
安全://
安全性://
sekura://
Ασφαλή://
सुरक्षित://
ปลอดภัย://
сейф://
That way you can kill two birds with one stone as such protocols would only accept the characters of that specific language, which eliminates the problem of
“How do I know if this is cyrillic or latin?”
I’m going to turn this into a thread of it’s own, because I really like to know the answer and think it deviates from the original thread question.
I’m not sure about this - Japanese URLs are in romaji not kanji so we don’t see eg https://千葉市.jp, rather it would be https://chibashi.jp. I don’t know about other non Roman alphabet languages?
(PS 安全な is literally the adjective “safe” and you would only use the suffix な when it is followed by a noun.)
That’s because for a long time kanji was simply not supported.
Of course it is. It’s the same protocol.
It just supports a different language.
My Japanese is limited to recognizing 100 words and characters and I needed some distinction from Chinese. I changed it to 安全性 if this is better, otherwise it’ll be 安全中://,
安全本://, 安全台:// and 安全香://.
its going to be interesting seeing how people on tv / radio are going to handle saying “safe colon forward slash forward slash some_website”. the forward slash part doesnt exactly roll off the tongue but then neither does “double u double double u dot some_website dot com”
it think the part that will cause the most confusion is “safe colon”… people will think its something to do with keeping your gut bacteria healthy
When do you think this will need to be spoken? You don’t need to type it into a SAFE Browser for example. Also you don’t need to say ‘forward slash’, because ‘slash’ will do.
Would be good if the browser assumes safe:// if the address starts without the protocol in front, rather like they do on the current web
Although … if it is assumed, then this may make search requests through the URL bar tricky depending on standardisation of domain naming i.e. with a .tld at the end to distinguish a site from a search term.
I always thought, and still do, that mixing up and confusing the URL bar and some search function is a very bad idea. We should not let bad practices from the current internet impact the design of the new SAFE one.
Personally I hate that function and attempting to turn it off completely doesn’t typically work. As soon as you use an unusual subdomain it goes to search before trying DNS
If Firefox/ Brave/etc. browser will get extension to support SafeNetwork do you assume, that it will work in separate windown like “private mode” or just another tab ?
Extensions have to be allowed by the user to work in “private mode” … perhaps a plugin doesn’t? I don’t know. So I would assume just another tab.
Personally I love that function! I was trying to use default firefox recently and it was driving me nutz that it kept taking me to a 404 because I would consistently (but accidentally) search in the address bar and not the search bar! lol.
Firefox allows a search bar right next to the address bar and that is real easy to use
ha! Easy for smart farts like you neo ![]()