5 ms·
The most likely change would be for protocol to move from http to https (and for non-secure URIs to be 301 redirected/forced by HSTS) though I don't think that
by sjwright 10y ago
The most likely change would be for protocol to move from http to https (and for non-secure URIs to be 301 redirected/forced by HSTS) though I don't think that qualifies as a change under their rules.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y agoUnder "Detailed Terms": > A 301 redirect from www.longbets.org/601 to a different URL containing that text would also fulfill those conditions.
- jstanley 10y agoInterestingly it only specifies one level of redirection. So if the redirect were from http to https, and then to some other URL, it seems like that would fail to satisfy the requirements as written.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y agoI think that's being pedantic; multiple redirects really don't break the spirit of the clause.
- tokenizerrr 10y agoThe bet is for www.longbets.org/601, and does not include a http or https protocol. Amusingly enough www.longbets.org/601 currently redirects to longbets.org/601, though the detailed terms cover this.
- sjmulder 10y agoThe Detailed Terms section makes clear that it's for HTTP: > …entering the characters http://www.longbets.org/601 http://www.longbets.org/601 into the address bar of a web browser or command line tool (like curl) OR using a web browser to follow a hyperlink that points to http://www.longbets.org/601 http://www.longbets.org/601 MUST …