Re: [9fans] abaco @ plan9port [WAS: Hi and,plan9-native abaco sources?] - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] abaco @ plan9port [WAS: Hi and,plan9-native abaco sources?] - Plan9 ; is there anything that breaks if we take an adhoc approach to ignoring standards? who needs URLs anyway if you are too lazy for them. you are not too lazy to complain. On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: [9fans] abaco @ plan9port [WAS: Hi and,plan9-native abaco sources?]

  1. Re: [9fans] abaco @ plan9port [WAS: Hi and,plan9-native abaco sources?]

    is there anything that breaks if we take an adhoc approach to ignoring
    standards? who needs URLs anyway if you are too lazy for them. you are
    not too lazy to complain.

    On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
    > > hola,
    > >
    > > "http://9fans.net" is an URL, "9fans.net" is not.
    > >
    > > as for google, I added a "Google string" command sometime
    > > ago.

    >
    > what's the advantage of taking that position? is there something
    > that breaks if "9fans.net" is interpreted as "http://9fans.net"?
    >
    > "Google string" is unsatisfactory to me for several reasons. first,
    > it opens up a new window. second, it is much more cumbersome
    > because you have to select the whole search. with "g term" you
    > can double click at the end of an existing url and type "g term"
    > and you're done. no extra trip to the mouse.
    >
    > but that's just what works for me, and i'm lazy.
    >
    > - erik
    >
    >



  2. Re: [9fans] abaco @ plan9port [WAS: Hi and,plan9-native abaco sources?]

    > is there anything that breaks if we take an adhoc approach to ignoring
    > standards? who needs URLs anyway if you are too lazy for them. you are
    > not too lazy to complain.


    i don't see how providing code & and argument for the code
    is complaining. i didn't bring this subject up.

    as i see it, convienence takes text that is nor a valid uri and
    converts it to a valid uri. how does this qualify as ignoring the
    standard?

    - erik


+ Reply to Thread