Chinese Number Websites: The Secret Meaning of URLs (2014)
newrepublic.com
newrepublic.com
So not being able to rely on search, people have to memorize companies' urls, to type them into address bar and pass along to others the actual url string. Internet companies are forced to display them predominantly in ads. So a domain name that is cute/easy(often costing ridiculus amount) is all that more important in China than elsewhere.
Google please come back, it will be a net gain for humanity.
I'd rather them wait until they are no longer required to censor their results and track their users on behalf of the state security apparatus.
When I need to search in Chinese, baidu is the least terrible (but still really bad). Sogou isn't too far behind, but it's index is not as fresh, in my experience.
Instead of telling you the web address they tell you which keyword to type into search, sometimes even with an animation of it being typed into the search bar.
https://9292.nl is an example of this outside China, taking its name from 0900-9292 (a phone number you can call to get public transport travel directions, now largely replaced by the website/app).
It is a great service.
Basically Healthcare.gov for train tickets.
It certainly added wealth to the phone number holder/assigner.
Ie: they’re licensed to different parties in different locales.
So for FLOWERS you'd see that the F is on 3, L is on 5, O is on 6, etc. to get 356-9377. Note that both R and S are on 7, they map to the same number, so different words are likely to all map to the same number, like "Roses" and "Ropes".
Companies sometimes use longer or shorter numbers: you might see a number written with left-padded numbers, like "1-800-1FLOWER", for which you'd dial 1-800-135-6937. You might also see longer words, like 1-800-ARRANGEMENTS..you could type in 1-800-277-2643 63687, but the extra letters would just go into the recipient's PBX (like dialing an extension) and get discarded.
So 1800-flowers would be 1800-3569377
555-SHOE
Part of the reason why numbers are so pervasive, in the 51job.com sense, is that if you were to type out the pinyin for "i want a job" in Chinese... the url would be insanely long and unwieldy. 51job.com is easy to type and remember (also they have a billion ads everywhere). This means if you dont have numbers, you will try to use the initials for all the pinyins in your name. Jing Dong becomes jd.com
4008-517-517.com for McDonald's delivery is from their delivery phone number, which they had years before the URL. You would hear 4008 517 517 with a jingle on the radio all the time. The last time I heard it was probably 10 years ago but funny how the tune of these oft-heard ad jingles never fully leave your consciousness.
But apparently most TLDs don't support emoji URLs yet.
Meanwhile, almost all of humanity still can't get decent urls in their native language :(
Why not?
For example, http://xn--h1alffa9f.xn--p1ai/ renders the URL in Russian for me in the URL bar in all of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari (though Chrome converts to punycode if I copy the URL from the URL bar, unfortunately). [Edit: Also, it looks like HN's linkifier converts to punycode; what I wrote there is "россия.рф" and that's what HN has stored if I edit this comment.]
In more detail, for Firefox (where I can find this sort of thing quickly in the code), there are the following things affecting the display:
1) The "network.IDN_show_punycode" preference. This defaults to false, so punycode is not forced across the board.
2) There is a bunch of preferences for what toplevel domains are "safe" for use with non-ASCII chars by default no matter what. That option currently defaults to "false" as far as I can tell.
3) URLs the fit in the Highly Restrictive profile defined at https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Restriction_Level_Dete... are shown as non-punycode as far as I can tell.
4) There's some heuristic detection for URLs using multiple scripts at once and blocking that.
There are also preferences to force-allow or force-deny use of IDN with certain characters; those sets are empty by default.
In any case, the default behavior looks to me like a single-script URL in any language would be shown in IDN. Do you have a counter-example?
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/75294521381b331f82... has the relevant preferences with their default values as of today.
Disclaimer: I work on Firefox, and have been involved peripherally in some of the IDN work.
http://xn--n3h.com/ (Funny enough HN is stripping the Unicode Snowman glyph, so using the puny code version)
Was a great way to break websites. JavaScript used for client-side validation usually allowed it, but backend code often didn't understand unicode for URLs, and would usually choke somewhere and (fingers crossed) give you a lovely J2EE or ASP.NET error page with some helpful stack traces and version numbers
Hmm, it seems like the title should have a year after it.
> You can’t blame other countries for wanting to tell the American 250s to 0748.
250 = idiot
0748 = go die
Which translates:
> You can’t blame other countries for wanting to tell the American idiots to go die.
I'm not sure why the author felt the need to include that.
(Edit: Am I wrong for questioning the article?)
> Still, the numbers/letters divide is emblematic of the Internet’s built-in bias: Even more than two decades after its birth, it’s still a fundamentally American system.
It describes how URLs are frustrating and difficult to use for non-English speakers. Given that, it makes a joke about that frustration using the URL-hacks that are often used in China, which is what the whole prior article covers.
Though I also can’t imagine “go die” has the same force in Chinese that it would have in English if it’s a common slang.
"Yeah, let's just go ahead and hand over control of internet standards gift-wrapped to some of the worst human rights abusers in history. What could possibly go wrong?!"
If Russia and China were sane, reasonable states that cared for any semblance of human rights, yeah, sure, maybe it'd make sense to make this not American-centric. But as it stands, the author just comes off as naive.
America holding internet standards hostage can't be the answer to that, arrogant selfishness comes across as the motivation.
Telephony interoperability standards are managed just fine by an international committee; this can serve as a role model how to govern control of internet standards. http://ITU.int/ITU-T