Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomim | Hacker News Reader

So if it's a domain, you should fully qualify it: https://foo.zip.

Over time, this can become a convention. Part of the price you pay in using a .zip domain will be that software doesn't auto-linkify it unless you prefix it with http(s)://.

View on HN

And with chrome leading it (IIRC) and other browsers following, end users don't even see http or https:// prefixes in their browser bar anymore. Further adding to confusion.

I don't see a reason for adding these new TLDs other than a cash grab.

hiding the protocol prefixes was always a bad idea. the .zip domain would be an argument to revert that. but i don't have high hopes.

The domain has no relation to the protocol. I can own domains and never use http or https on them.

Right but if you're not hosting Web content then you wouldn't want it linkified in a Web context. If you're using it for something else, e.g. SMTP, then you'd represent the domain name differently as username@your.domain

Why wouldn't someone follow the standard of prefixing it with an appropriate subdomain? E.g., `smtp` or `imap` if it's something they're going to be discussing publicly?

Furthermore, why not use port numbers as a suffix? That's how we can have umpteen services across different protocols on a single domain.

But domains and protocols are orthogonal?

W W W PERIOD FOO PERIOD ZIP

SLASH DOT DASH DOT SLASH DOT DASH DOT SLASH DOT DASH DOT COM DOT COM DOT COM

Reply on news.ycombinator.com