Proper way of delimiting URLs in text [OT}

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

TaliesinSoft - 23 Aug 2004 00:47 GMT

Is there a proper or preferred convention for including URLs within text? I
have been a proponent of embracing a URL within angle brackets but have been
told by others that this is incorrect. My preference for the angle brackets
is because they clearly identify the beginning and ending of a URL, whether
or not the URL needs to be folded across multiple lines or is the terminating
entity of a sentence.

Also, is it now considered acceptable to eliminate the http:// lead in given
that most browsers (at least all of the one's with which I am familiar)
apparently automatically supply that prefix if it is elided?

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"

Reply to this Message

Tom Stiller - 23 Aug 2004 01:03 GMT

> Is there a proper or preferred convention for including URLs within text? I
> have been a proponent of embracing a URL within angle brackets but have been
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that most browsers (at least all of the one's with which I am familiar)
> apparently automatically supply that prefix if it is elided?

The browser may understand what is intended but the text application
displaying the abbreviated URL may not understand that it is supposed to
launch the browser.

Signature

Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

Reply to this Message

Sander Tekelenburg - 23 Aug 2004 03:37 GMT

> Is there a proper or preferred convention for including URLs within text?

Sure, there's even a RFC on it. (Although I don't have its number handy.
Could be RFC 2396. Good chance it's also in the RFCs that define HTTP. )
Enclose within angle brackets. If you really want to stiick to the
rules, have it start with "URL:"

<URL:http://w3.org/>

> I
> have been a proponent of embracing a URL within angle brackets but have been
> told by others that this is incorrect.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over that unless they pointed you to the
relevant specs confirming their claim.

> My preference for the angle brackets
> is because they clearly identify the beginning and ending of a URL, whether
> or not the URL needs to be folded across multiple lines or is the terminating
> entity of a sentence.

Exactly.

> Also, is it now considered acceptable to eliminate the http:// lead

For ftp URLs, sure ;)

Without a protocol specifier it's just a string, not a URL.

To me this is simply about what makes sense. It may be that some/many
tools that people use will try to guess what URL was meant. If you want
to have your comunication rely on some software's guessing skill that's
your choice. It's not mine.

Besides, what's to be gained from leaving out the protocol specifier?
Typing a few characters less?

[Btw, I see no connection to Macs. Perhaps something like
<news:comp.infosystems.www.misc> would be the appropriate group. Then
again it's not even a WWW issue...]

Signature

Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!"
PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"

Reply to this Message

TaliesinSoft - 23 Aug 2004 16:03 GMT

[after making several helpful responses to questions I asked regarding the
proper protocol for including a URL within text]

> [Btw, I see no connection to Macs. Perhaps something like
> <news:comp.infosystems.www.misc> would be the appropriate group. Then again
> it's not even a WWW issue...]

I posted in this group (note that I did identify my posting as OT) as I come
to expect helpful responses to a variety of questions in the Mac related
groups!

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"

Reply to this Message

Neill Massello - 23 Aug 2004 14:33 GMT

> Is there a proper or preferred convention for including URLs within text? I
> have been a proponent of embracing a URL within angle brackets but have been
> told by others that this is incorrect. My preference for the angle brackets
> is because they clearly identify the beginning and ending of a URL, whether
> or not the URL needs to be folded across multiple lines or is the terminating
> entity of a sentence.

Use angle brackets. See the Appendix to RFC 1738
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt?number=1738>.

> Also, is it now considered acceptable to eliminate the http:// lead in given
> that most browsers (at least all of the one's with which I am familiar)
> apparently automatically supply that prefix if it is elided?

No. A proper URL always includes a protocol identifier, such as "http:"
or "mailto:". (The "URL:" designation mentioned in RFC 1738 was never
used much and is now obsolete.)

Reply to this Message

Gnarlodious - 24 Aug 2004 06:07 GMT

Entity Neill Massello spoke thus:

>> Also, is it now considered acceptable to eliminate the http:// lead in given
>> that most browsers (at least all of the one's with which I am familiar)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> or "mailto:". (The "URL:" designation mentioned in RFC 1738 was never
> used much and is now obsolete.)

At least in Entourage, "http:" identifies it as a a clickable link while
"www" is just text. You would think people would paste clickable URL's to
get more traffic, but NO. Just try telling people to paste a proper URL and
they turn nasty on you:

"WE DON"T NEED NO STINKIN" PROTOCOL!!".

So, as long as Outlook for Windows uses "www" for clickable links we are all
screwed.

-- Gnarlie
http://Gnarlodious.com/Cogent/

Reply to this Message

TaliesinSoft - 24 Aug 2004 07:22 GMT

> "WE DON"T NEED NO STINKIN" PROTOCOL!!".

Ah, there do be a free spirit amongst us!

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"

Reply to this Message

Gregory Weston - 24 Aug 2004 11:59 GMT

> > "WE DON"T NEED NO STINKIN" PROTOCOL!!".
>
> Ah, there do be a free spirit amongst us!

Remember the guy years ago in New Hampshire who got into serious trouble
for putting opaque tape over the then-new "Live Free Or Die" on his
license plate?

Signature

Standard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom,
they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his
"standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon

Reply to this Message

TaliesinSoft - 24 Aug 2004 17:19 GMT

> Remember the guy years ago in New Hampshire who got into serious trouble for
> putting opaque tape over the then-new "Live Free Or Die" on his license

plate?

Methinks I was still living in New Hampshire when that happened!

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"

Reply to this Message

George Williams - 24 Aug 2004 19:07 GMT

> > > "WE DON"T NEED NO STINKIN" PROTOCOL!!".
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for putting opaque tape over the then-new "Live Free Or Die" on his
> license plate?

The cops probably pulled him over and told him to take off the tape,
or go to jail. Using tape as a subterfuge is something they have
to deal with all the time. I just hope he didn't decide to die, after
realising he was living in a society where everything not mandatory
is prohibited ;-)

Reply to this Message

Gregory Weston - 25 Aug 2004 22:33 GMT

> > > > "WE DON"T NEED NO STINKIN" PROTOCOL!!".
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The cops probably pulled him over and told him to take off the tape,
> or go to jail.

Actually just a court appearance and a fine to start. It eventually
ended up in the Supreme Court.

> Using tape as a subterfuge is something they have to deal with all
> the time. I just hope he didn't decide to die, after realising he
> was living in a society where everything not mandatory is
> prohibited ;-)

Nope. He won. Eventually. Details available through this link:

<http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=388679>

With, I might add, brackets on't.

G

Signature

Reply to this Message

Gerhard Torges, geb. Hö lscher - 24 Aug 2004 00:38 GMT

> Is there a proper or preferred convention for including URLs within text? I
> have been a proponent of embracing a URL within angle brackets but have been
> told by others that this is incorrect.

It is not.
Just keep it that way.

That's one of the reasons for doing so.

No.
Remember that a newsreader (the programm you use to read your
newsgroups) is not necessarily a web browser too. A clicked URL will be
handed over to the system, be analyzed there and, if it is a http URL,
passed over to the appropriate helper application, which should be set
to your preferred browser.

There are lots of other types of URLs like ftp, telnet, ssh, mailto,
news, gopher etc. pp. and the protocol part is essential to distinguish
between them.

Gerhard

Reply to this Message

TaliesinSoft - 24 Aug 2004 07:21 GMT

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:38:04 -0500, Gerhard Torges, geb. Hölscher wrote
(in article <1gj01j3.1leab6ehlt8rpN%deaf_null@hotmail.com>):

>> Is there a proper or preferred convention for including URLs within text? I
>> have been a proponent of embracing a URL within angle brackets but have been
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Gerhard

Gerhard,

Many thanks for the well presented and complete response.

Jim

-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"My dog never came across a bush he didn't like!"

Reply to this Message

Mac Forum / General / Networking / August 2004

Proper way of delimiting URLs in text [OT}