A few more from Yosemite
On 2017-05-19 15:47:41 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 15:50:13 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 13:02:37 +0000, "David B." said: On 5/19/2017 3:32 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 02:11:02 +0000, PeterN said: On 5/18/2017 9:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-19 01:12:39 +0000, "Mayayana" said: "Savageduck" wrote | Perhaps you should do some research, and read the following: | " The angle-bracket "" and "" and double-quote (") characters are | excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in | text documents and protocol fields. The character "#" is excluded | because it is used to delimit a URI from a fragment identifier in URI | references (Section 4). The percent character "%" is excluded because | it is used for the encoding of escaped characters. | He's just talking about what can't be used in a URL because it's used in HTML. That is the point. In HTML code you might have something like A HREF="www.dropbox.com"dropbox/A But that's in the code itself. Newsreaders and email programs recognize a URL by the syntax and act accordingly. Your addition of is irrelevant. It's not proper, readable HTML and it would make no difference if it were, just as my HTML snippet above will show as plain text in this post because this post is not HTML. You could just as easily have used *www.dropbox.com* or (www.dropbox.com). The extra marks serve no purpose. (Though some marks may prevent your newsreadr from recognizing the line as a link.) I think that we are talking at cross purposes. My typing the text of a URL into the UTF-8 text encoding of my Usenet client, has nothing to do with HTML, never has. I use two Usenet clients as my mood takes me, Unison, and Hogwasher, and neither supports HTML. When I use my iPhone or iPad to access Usenet I use NewsTap which also foregoes HTML. Since the " " are not part of the HTML set, and not read by HTML, they serve a useful function as a URL delimiter when used in a text transmission. ...and I don't use HTML for my email. | ...and why would the above clickable URL contained, and delimited by | angle-brackets be less secure than the undelimited version below? | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt It's not. I didn't mean to complicate things. I was just noting that your brackets are superfluous and that it's easier to copy the URL without them. Not to worry. If you find it convenient it's no big deal. The security part is not directly related. I use a number of browsers and clicking a link in email or a newsgroup post will activate the default browser. I happen to have IE set as the default, which I don't allow to go online. I block it at the firewall. Why? Because IE is profoundly unsafe and quirky in rendering webpages. But it's good for using on Windows. I like to use it for reading HTML files locally. It's quick and lightweight. I also don't want to risk accidentally clicking a link in something without meaning to. I also don't want software going online without asking. By setting IE as the default I have a good reader for local HTML files while I also block anything going online that I didn't specifically intend to do so. Thus, when someone sends or posts a link, I copy it and paste into Firefox or Pale Moon. I don't know if you have default programs on Mac. Default programs for what purpose? I have several programs on my Mac and on my iOS devices which could be considered default. However, I always have the option to use something different and set that as a default for any particular use. I guess you probably don't even see the full file names. On Windows, the default program is automatically called for a specific file extension. Why wouldn't I see the full file names with extensions when using MacOS? So for instance, if I install software that then tries to call home without asking, that will call up my default browser, which is IE, which will then show an error window saying that it's unable to reach the website. Likewise, if I accidentally click a link in an email without meaning to, that will call IE which will be unable to reach the link. Thus, my arrangement is handy for both privacy and security. I wouldn't be caught using IE either. ;-) Does that mean you are a closet IE user? ;-p Not even close. For most stuff I use Safari, and I use Chrome together with the Zenmate VPN extension for my surreptitious BBC viewing, and some other browsing. I do much the same, but ...... I'm shocked to learn that a fellow like you would break the law! ;-) What Law? well we in the UK as citizens you can be fined or go to prison for not having a TV license even if you don't watch TV. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/599...Scotland-fines I should be OK then, I just won't watch the BBC in the UK. We rebelled against the crown in 1776. Have you got photographic evidence of this :) I only have hand-stitched, and scribed with a quill evidence of that. I am just keeping up a tradition. What is a boy, whose Trans-Atlantic family thoroughly twisted his thought process with the Goons, to do? Laugh at the stupidity of such a system where we have to pay for a license by law. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A few more from Yosemite
On 05/19/2017 11:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 15:50:13 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: snip http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/599...Scotland-fines We rebelled against the crown in 1776. Have you got photographic evidence of this :) Sort of... check the back of the US $2 bill! (One of my ancestors was left out of that picture.) -- Ken Hart |
A few more from Yosemite
On 5/22/2017 9:57 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 17:02:35 UTC+1, David B. wrote: On 5/19/2017 4:47 PM, Whisky-dave wrote: we have to pay for a license by law. Only if one has a TV set! Not it's any equipment capable of recieving the transmission, so if you have a DVD player with a tuner you have to pay. I stand corrected! :-( I've now read he- http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one Sorry about that, Dave! -- David B. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com