3 ms·
Right. What I'm saying is the HTML is cruft. <a href="hxxp://somereallylongurl.com/1234">link</a> vs hxxp://somereallylongurl.com/1234 vs hxxp://shortner.c
by gry 18y ago
Right. What I'm saying is the HTML is cruft.
<a href="hxxp://somereallylongurl.com/1234">link</a>
vs
hxxp://somereallylongurl.com/1234
vs
hxxp://shortner.com/1234
The client will automatically href it. You're not saving anything...actually creating more characters. The URL benefits from shortening, not the link title.
- chaosmachine 18y agoEither way, it doesn't matter what the URL is when the user only sees "link". This is why tiny URLs are a solution to a problem the web doesn't have. Tiny anchor text is all that's needed.
- gry 18y agoThis is why tiny URLs are a solution to a problem the web doesn't have. Agreed, it solves little to nothing with the web. It is, however, helpful to Twitter and the problem/limitation SMS has. To my mention earlier, URL shorteners are growing with Twitter's popularity, which is why all the fuss is here, methinks.