Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I can
simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
the link into it....r
> Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I can
> simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
> secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
> the link into it....r
It's especially peculiar when the same link works perfectly well without the s (as is the case with this one).
> Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I can
> simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
> secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
> the link into it....r
You seem to be posting with Direct Read News. I don't know that product, but I would hope it's customizable as to the form of text that it recognizes as a link; most newsreaders are, I believe.
Otherwise I think you should report it as a bug. https-type links have been around for a lot of years, and there's really no excuse for a newsreader not to recognize them.
-- "The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
> Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I can
> simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
> secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
> the link into it....r
I just click and shazam, it appears, but thanks for telling me that the almost ubiquitous "s" stands for "secure".
>> On 27 Apr 2012 22:31:54 -0700, R H Draney wrote:
>>> Why are so many people lately posting links with the "https://" prefix?...I
>>can
>>> simply click on a regular unsecured link when I'm reading Usenet, but with a
>>> secure link I have to copy the entire link, open a new browser tab, and paste
>> > the link into it....r
>> You seem to be posting with Direct Read News. I don't know that >> product, but I would hope it's customizable as to the form of text >> that it recognizes as a link; most newsreaders are, I believe.
>> Otherwise I think you should report it as a bug. https-type links >> have been around for a lot of years, and there's really no excuse for >> a newsreader not to recognize them.
>You're right, there isn't. And "Direct Read News" isn't a newsreader,
>it's Newsguy's web-to-news interface. Like most such, it's both clunky
>and crippled.
But unlike any "real" newsreader, I could use it at the office....r
Don't like it. It makes English look like Vietnamese. I learned to read
English as she is writ without the help of such funny little marks. A bit
of PIE in the sky there methinks.
-- ξ: ) Proud to be curly
> Don't like it. It makes English look like Vietnamese.
Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel sound, is "dög".
> I learned to read
> English as she is writ without the help of such funny little marks. A bit
> of PIE in the sky there methinks.
Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:
> Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
> world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
> see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
> without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
> that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
Would a Serb see Љ and Њ as diacritic variations of Л and Н?
> The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
> wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
> sound, is "dög".
The o in dog has a different sound in AmE (much longer) from the o of fox,
which latter applies (as nearly as it can) to both words in BrE.
> Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>> Yes. English spelling isn't the most rational and logical system in the
>> world, but it does have one huge advantage shared only (as far as I can
>> see) by Dutch and Serbian among European languages, that it manages
>> without needing to be defaced with diacritical marks (though I suppose
>> that a Turk might argue that i has a diacritical mark).
> Would a Serb see Љ and Њ as diacritic variations of Л and Н?
I was assuming not (as they're shown as separate letters in the alphabet) but we'd need to ask a Serb.
>> The sample sentence is too short to deduce the system from, but I did
>> wonder why "fox" is spelt "fox", whereas "dog", with the same vowel
>> sound, is "dög".
> The o in dog has a different sound in AmE (much longer) from the o of fox,
> which latter applies (as nearly as it can) to both words in BrE.
