Re: [Phys-l] URL syntax

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 10/09/2006 11:09 PM, Edmiston, Mike wrote:

> .... MS Internet Explorer will accept
> either slash or backslash in the URL.  That seems to me a nice feature
> of IE.  I am curious why John sees it as the mark of the beast.  Why not
> just have all browsers accept either slash or backslash? 

There are numerous reasons why not.  First of all, URLs are accepted
by lots of things that aren't browsers.  Suppose I have written
several Java and Perl programs that fetch stuff via URLs (which
in fact I have).  Do I need to rewrite them to accept backslashes?
What about xine, lynx, and other progs that accept URLs from the
command line, where backslash already has a nontrivial meaning?

More generally, Microsoft has been repeatedly convicted in various
jurisdictions of abusing its monopoly power.  And if you know the
industry, you'll know that they've done lots of unconscionable
things beyond what they got convicted for.  Messing with the
standards is just one of the things they do that works to their
advantage but works to the disadvantage of customers and everyone
else.  It is a terrible burden for developers when they have to
be compatible with the sensible, well-documented standard *and then*
be compatible with whatever undocumented nonsense Microsoft is
shipping.  If you're lucky it's just extra work ...  but often
there are irreconcilable inconsistencies.

   "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free
    and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
    foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had
    the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

> Is that any
> different than having "autocorrect" turned on when you do word
> processing?

Yes, it is different.

BTW, if autocorrect is such a nice feature, why did it fail to correct
the URL in question, given at least two opportunities to do so?