Love it. This is going in the toolbox along with http://shadyurl.com
Heh it can't handle URL Lengthened URLs.
A URL Lengthener
aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com
61–70 of 313 posts
Re: A URL Lengthener
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes. Checkbox Driven Development. AKA Monkey Paw Development, where you give exactly what was asked for; it remains surprisingly popular in the government and enterprise spaces.
Requirements are hard in dysfunctional organizations, or those with more stakeholders than capability and agility.
Requirements are hard upfront, period, to the point I'd say that any organization trying to set them upfront is dysfunctional, tautologically. Making all the decisions when you have the least amount of information is a Bad Idea.
Re: A URL Lengthener
#63fun 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 spent some time looking at similar specs for more recent browsers, but wasn't able to find anything useful. This was for a proof-of-concept I made that stores entire web pages in URLs (creatively named "URL Pages") by base64-encoding them and putting them in the URL fragment (the part after the "#"). https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages The URLs this thing generates get pretty damn big sometimes, since I never got a…
Okay, but you can already store web pages in URLs. `data:text/html,Hi%20there!`
You can even base64 encode them, if you want to.
Re: A URL Lengthener
#64so useless
Re: A URL Lengthener
#65Example result: https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... Stellar!
Re: A URL Lengthener
#66A handy link to this discussion:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Re: A URL Lengthener
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you happen to have the exact wording? As far as I can tell these mean the same thing. 1. "You must support URL length up to 100 characters" -> your browser must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones) 2. "Your supported URL length must be at least 100 character" -> You must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones)
"At least" means more than or equal to. In other words, the 'least' it can be is 100 characters, with no upper bound.
Both sentences require browsers to support 100 characters.
Both sentences permit browsers to support 101 characters.
Re: A URL Lengthener
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent some time looking at similar specs for more recent browsers, but wasn't able to find anything useful. This was for a proof-of-concept I made that stores entire web pages in URLs (creatively named "URL Pages") by base64-encoding them and putting them in the URL fragment (the part after the "#"). https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages The URLs this thing generates get pretty damn big sometimes, since I never got a…
Okay, but you can already store web pages in URLs. `data:text/html, Hi%20there! ` You can even base64 encode them, if you want to.
This is true, but linking to data URIs no longer works. Many browsers block them for "security reasons." In Firefox, a link to that page is not clickable for me:
From a convenience standpoint, it's also far less likely that a URL with an http: scheme will be blocked by a random web application than one with a data: scheme. For example it makes sharing on social media sites and chat applications more feasible.
Re: A URL Lengthener
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requirements are hard in dysfunctional organizations, or those with more stakeholders than capability and agility.
Requirements are hard upfront, period, to the point I'd say that any organization trying to set them upfront is dysfunctional, tautologically. Making all the decisions when you have the least amount of information is a Bad Idea.
Also, how long will it take to build and how much will it cost? :)
This is where Agile ought to improve things, but then SAFE came along and we were back to square one.