13 ms·

Or google.com/path/to/resource which we already have...

• xyzzyz 16y ago
  We don't, actually. We have http://google.com/path/ http://google.com/path/ . The URI scheme, the 'http:// http:// part, that is, is actually meaningless and could be replaced with shorter and meaningful 'web:', which was, I believe, the main point of a poster you were replying to.
  • bruceboughton 16y ago
    My point was that http:// http:// is entirely superfluous - your browser doesn't need it and no one ever says it. In most cases, the same is true of www., but sadly not in all.
  • daleharvey 16y ago
    I think the main point of the poster was about the ordering of the address, subdomains and paths screw up ordering because they arent linear, its like american dates. some.sub.domain.com/and/a/path vs .com/domain/sub/some/and/a/path
    • Yaggo 16y ago
      Both were my mains points, but I see the "http:// http:// problem bigger. It's too unpronounceable prefix for every-day use (because of combination of letters h+t+t+p and three punctuation marks after that!), so people simply skip it. Because normal people still need some standard identification string to recognize a website address, the site owners configure the "www." subdomain for that purpose, although it's totally unnecessary component (but made sense historically when the www was just one marginal service among others).