aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com
41–50 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For many years (but no longer) Vince Cate's Offshore Information Services had a DNS A record for the ccTLD "ai", so that http://ai/ was a valid URL that worked in browsers. (A few people also had e-mail addresses @ai.) Today, there are no longer any TLDs of any kind with their own A records. https://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone
Neat! That link worked for me on the latest Chrome ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
fun fact. in the browser wars of 1993(?) i looked at the specs from netscape (mozilla dady for the young folks) and microsoft (what w3c? ha!) and netscape release a browser spec that said "X must support up to Y", as in "url must be up to 1024 chars", "cookies must be up to 1mb", etc... then microsoft release IE4 (or 6?) web spec. It was literally a copy of netscape's but with "up to" replaced with "at least". and fr…
https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages
The URLs this thing generates get pretty damn big sometimes, since I never got around to implementing compression. I can confirm that massive URLs from pages with inline images do work, but probably take some not-so-optimized code paths because they make my computer's fans spin up. Click at your own peril:
fun fact. in the browser wars of 1993(?) i looked at the specs from netscape (mozilla dady for the young folks) and microsoft (what w3c? ha!) and netscape release a browser spec that said "X must support up to Y", as in "url must be up to 1024 chars", "cookies must be up to 1mb", etc... then microsoft release IE4 (or 6?) web spec. It was literally a copy of netscape's but with "up to" replaced with "at least". and fr…
I don't know. There's a lot of problems but to me "at least" sounds like a more helpful phrasing. Browsers run in such heterogeneous compute environments (even back then) that "up to" basically cripples you to the lowest common denominator of all platforms you target. "At least" makes it mostly the HW vendors problem. Sure, MS was encountering this problem more because Windows ran on such a large range of HW but thin…
I think that 1024 was probably too short as a limit, but I think that it does make sense to impose an arbitrary upper bound to reject malformed requests early.
I don't see what you mean by "the HW vendor's problem", I can assure you that any browser in existence is going to have an issue if you send a 1TB URL, while the NIC will have no issue transmitting it.
https://lifehacker.com/freaking-huge-url-lengthens-too-short...
For example, here's a URL that contains both the grammar for a language that compiles to CSS and also example code. Works like a charm.
https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer/#grammar%0A%20toolin...
fun fact. in the browser wars of 1993(?) i looked at the specs from netscape (mozilla dady for the young folks) and microsoft (what w3c? ha!) and netscape release a browser spec that said "X must support up to Y", as in "url must be up to 1024 chars", "cookies must be up to 1mb", etc... then microsoft release IE4 (or 6?) web spec. It was literally a copy of netscape's but with "up to" replaced with "at least". and fr…
I don't know. There's a lot of problems but to me "at least" sounds like a more helpful phrasing. Browsers run in such heterogeneous compute environments (even back then) that "up to" basically cripples you to the lowest common denominator of all platforms you target. "At least" makes it mostly the HW vendors problem. Sure, MS was encountering this problem more because Windows ran on such a large range of HW but thin…
What it literally means and what people understand when reading it aren't the same thing. On this case, for people creating sites, "up to" leads immediately into the real meaning of the phrase, while "at least" strongly implies the opposite. But for people creating browsers, the implication is inverted.