Subject:
|
Re: URL characters
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Jul 1999 22:26:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4901 times
|
| |
|
|
Wouldn't NCSA be the one to blame? ncsa-httpd supported the
feature that caused people to use ~. Did they make that up?
KL
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.publish, Lee Jorgensen writes:
> > Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > So what's up with that, anyway? How the heck did ~ gain such huge
> > > popularity if it's not officially allowed in URLs? Was it allowed once
> > > upon a time? Or is it simply part of today's de facto URL standard
> > > because of its extremely wide misuse? (It's too bad that it's not
> > > officially allowed, because it's a great character for what it's typically
> > > used for.)
> >
> > Unix makes the ~ character a users home directory ... so UnixSystem/~lee ...
> > would be my home directory ...
> >
> > Now because of this, and since the Internet (Arpanet) were all college
> > schools when it 'went public', the system of choice at colleges was Unix,
> > this made the web have some of the same naming conventions ...
> >
> > It's an old thing ... but you know what it's like to get hundreds of people
> > to change ... think of what the colleges went through to get millions of
> > students to change ... which they didn't.
>
> That's what I thought the etymology of ~ was in URLs too -- but how did it
> ever get *allowed* in URLs in the first place? That's what baffles me. The
> first time someone tried it, why didn't it fail? The early browsers and httpd
> daemons must've silently just passed it on through (as they all do today), and
> people must never have bothered to look to see if ~ was actually valid in URLs.
> I'll bet it got out of control pretty quickly, especially because it's such
> a natural thing to want to use! :-)
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: URL characters
|
| (...) That's what I thought the etymology of ~ was in URLs too -- but how did it ever get *allowed* in URLs in the first place? That's what baffles me. The first time someone tried it, why didn't it fail? The early browsers and httpd daemons must've (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
