aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com
A URL Lengthener
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com/
312 comments
Below is a link I generated for https://twitter.com/home
http://www.5z8.info/winamp-cracked.exe_x8c5se_how2pipebomb
Thank you for this, I laughed hard.
http://www.5z8.info/winamp-cracked.exe_x8c5se_how2pipebomb
Thank you for this, I laughed hard.
That totally reminds me of this story:
http://www.5z8.info/awesome-real-life-headshots_q2h6fv_linke...
http://www.5z8.info/awesome-real-life-headshots_q2h6fv_linke...
This is a great story, thanks for sharing!
Edit: if someone need the url at work: https://m.slashdot.org/story/17042
Edit: if someone need the url at work: https://m.slashdot.org/story/17042
If you go to that page, it is a good read. Then you hit the back button to get back here, and it just reloads the page.
Why?
Because slashdot are assholes.
Why?
Because slashdot are assholes.
That's like a whole level extra of sad because it's not that someone was oblivious to list context in perl, but that they knew about it but didn't quite get it right.
Or, it was purposeful, and he liked how it left out the attributions to single line quotes or made a weird half-aside out of multi-line ones, and it's just another case of someone not realizing put some random content up under your own name can lead to problems. Also sad, but less unique.
Or, it was purposeful, and he liked how it left out the attributions to single line quotes or made a weird half-aside out of multi-line ones, and it's just another case of someone not realizing put some random content up under your own name can lead to problems. Also sad, but less unique.
Lol. I clicked this on my (managed) work laptop, and immediately got a Compliance warning popup. I don't know what I expected...
Same. "Your organization's policy prohibits access to websites categorized as Tasteless & Offensive.". How rude!
Sophos managed macs
Ahhh, devSecOps. This guys banned lastpass.com or storage.googleapis.com because of "security" in company I justed to work.
Facebook will automatically censor a lot of them, lol.
That is hilarious... And potentially practical! One way to discourage security-conscious strangers from clicking on your links!
Heh it can't handle URL Lengthened URLs.
Hilarious!
Though I'm kind of disappointed about the lack of HTTPS support on that site.
Though I'm kind of disappointed about the lack of HTTPS support on that site.
Sounds quite on brand to me!
And wouldn’t that be actually a feature!
Yeah, that seems shady...
I assume this is a joke, right? A real shady url certainly wouldn't use https.
Not necessarily. It's trivial and free to get certificates. A lot of shady sites are using them now.
Obligatory xkcd:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Ruined for me by their cookie consent page :D
And by the ads...
They start playing and you have 10 secs to guess where you were sent.
Great tool!
But for some reason it doesn't recognize https://x.org as a valid URL.
But for some reason it doesn't recognize https://x.org as a valid URL.
That's really funny :'-D
Brilliant.
Microsoft also provides a URL lengthener via "Advanced Outlook.com security for Office 365 subscribers". Thanks to them, any URL we send or receive by email at work turns into an unrecognizable monster. At least the links include comforting words like "safelinks" and "protection" so that everyone can feel safe and protected.
Or when you Google something and copy a link straight from their search page. Novel-length URLs.
This is so frustrating, I just want the url, but NO, you can an escaped version of the URL embedded inside another escaped blob instead. Ditto with Facebook.
I use a Firefox addon for that, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dont-track-me...
Good extension. ClearURLs can also do this for a wide range of sites, and supports custom rules for sites you specify:
https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls
Privacy Badger is another option that cleans Google and Facebook links while blocking trackers, and is available by default on Firefox for Android:
https://privacybadger.org
https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls
Privacy Badger is another option that cleans Google and Facebook links while blocking trackers, and is available by default on Firefox for Android:
https://privacybadger.org
How would Microsoft, Google and Facebook otherwise be able to track when and what you click?! Think of the hit to their revenue!
They can use onclick and leave the href attribute alone.
Then they can't track if you share the link!
But what to do about them JavaScript disabling varmints then?
That’s what hyperlink auditing with the ping attribute is for:
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#hyperlink-...
You put a `ping` attribute on a link, and when the user follows the link, the browser sends a request to the ping URL notifying it of the action.
Firefox disables it by default, which doesn’t seem like much of a privacy win considering JavaScript is enabled by default and can polyfill this functionality.
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#hyperlink-...
You put a `ping` attribute on a link, and when the user follows the link, the browser sends a request to the ping URL notifying it of the action.
Firefox disables it by default, which doesn’t seem like much of a privacy win considering JavaScript is enabled by default and can polyfill this functionality.
Giving Javascript the ability to make requests without asking the user via dialog for each one—if we must allow it at all—was a mistake.
I'm sure this is something they have considered as their own analytics program uses onclick to track outbound traffic - I assume it's a mix of speed, reliability and the ability to track without javascript.
Plus, if it was done on OnClick there would definitely be an add-on to disable the tracking on all browsers.
Plus, if it was done on OnClick there would definitely be an add-on to disable the tracking on all browsers.
There are some privacy reasons for it.
A direct link from a search page will let websites see the search terms that users entered in to navigate there.
Google still knows everything so it doesn't protect you from them, but websites are more in the dark what users were doing before clicking the link.
A direct link from a search page will let websites see the search terms that users entered in to navigate there.
Google still knows everything so it doesn't protect you from them, but websites are more in the dark what users were doing before clicking the link.
And then Google aggregates that back to sides that use Google analytics so that they get both sides of the users
There is rel="noreferrer" for that.
That's the point, How else are we supposed to fight these companies? Take their source of money away and watch them squirm.
I've actually tried switching to Bing, just because Bing's search results include the actual URL of the page when you right-click (instead of some Google-riffic monstrosity...)
Or when they helpfully add www.google.com/amp/s/ to the start of it.
Copying canonical PDF link from Google result on Android device is extremely frustrating because Chrome Android doesn't support to open PDF so it opens reader app. Anyone have solution?
I think they fixed this... did you try it recently?
Oh my goodness, yes, safelinks: no doubt they provide some security benefits but from a UX perspective I detest them. The redirect to the real URL often takes far too long and sometimes Outlook, being the apparently single-threaded "let's make all network requests on the UI thread" pile of stinking fecal matter that it is, appears not to respond to your click, so you click again, and then maybe again, and then maybe yet again... and then all of a sudden you've got four browser tabs opening up to load the same URL and taking several seconds to redirect.
I hate, hate, hate, HATE, HATE safelinks.
I hate, hate, hate, HATE, HATE safelinks.
The Office 365 mail crap is the worst. We had to use it in college and it would always click password reset links, expiring them before you could even read your mail.
Was posted on Hacker News:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
oh wow thanks!
This domain uses 56 `a`-s. Interestingly enough 63 `a`-s .com is also a URL lengthener: http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Try scrolling to the right they have an infinite scroll with a's going.
That's very weird!
How did you even find this?
How did you even find this?
63 characters is the length limit for individual labels in domain names, so I just wanted to see who has the most `a`-s.
I have a personal domain http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
It used to be longer, but name.com that I use nowadays does not support any longer ones. :( I think there were a few a's more, up to the technical limit (which I forget now).
It used to be longer, but name.com that I use nowadays does not support any longer ones. :( I think there were a few a's more, up to the technical limit (which I forget now).
Sometimes instead of typing google.com I end up typing gooooooooogle.com
that doesn't seem to work for me. example: http://gooooooooogle.com
Speaking of sketchy websites :)
Would have been cool though if someone at google had bought all gooo... domains.
Speaking of sketchy websites :)
Would have been cool though if someone at google had bought all gooo... domains.
A handy link to this discussion:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
I clicked on your link, half expecting to get rick-rolled, and was pleasantly surprised to find myself back on this same page.... but also kinda disappointed. :)
+1 for avoiding the temptation.
+1 for avoiding the temptation.
I miss getting Rick Rolled.
Here you go, sweetheart. https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Savage.
Darn it! That’s even worse!
These days it's all about personalised, targeted rolling. You have to find out what song your friend hates the most (say, "Africa" by Toto) and try to trick them into listening to ever-more-horrible cover versions of it.
At least, that seems to be the thing in my friend group.
At least, that seems to be the thing in my friend group.
That’s genius: Customizez Rolling based on musical tastes.
I will say that roll recipient feedback indicated that the “YouTube ads take away from the shock value.”
So maybe hosting your own videos is the way to go for the intrepid roller.
I will say that roll recipient feedback indicated that the “YouTube ads take away from the shock value.”
So maybe hosting your own videos is the way to go for the intrepid roller.
Someone should offer this personalization as a service. I’m sure it’s easy to purchase all the necessary PII
I don't know if that really works though. It's a bit like gift giving: the point is arguably more to show off the effort you personally put in just to prank your friend.
Honestly that's probably the only thing I would use either of these for.
"He must have died while typing it" comes to my mind...
Great work!
A bit of an edge case, but you do not handle cyrillic (and potentially other non-latin URLs) correctly. кц.рф didn’t work for me.
Hey actual author here! Seems like thats something with js being dumb. Maybe i'll add a checkbox to allow for an override
I'm curious about the decision to host the source code on replit vs github?
you got a xss bro
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Thought I'd comment to note that (as of 2021-05-14T22:07:00Z) this just does the alert() POC and isn't nefarious, if anyone is deeply curious enough to click but cautious enough to avoid a deaddove.jpg situation
Just fixed this a few minutes ago, thanks to those who told me about it! (look for v1.4.2 on npm and the corresponding commit on github)
doesn't work anymore >:)
with the pure speed of replit i went from issue opened to closed in like 20 minutes
with the pure speed of replit i went from issue opened to closed in like 20 minutes
Wait could you explain a bit more how replit let you fix it so quickly
Well, I use Replit as an ide and just hitting the run button meant my fix was immediately deployed. didn't have to push to git or wait ssh into a machine to pull from master and restart
Ahhh I didn’t realize replit let you deploy, that clears things up, thanks.
We took "Show HN" out of the title because it implies that the project is the submitter's own personal work. Please don't do that if it isn't. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27157877
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27157877
Back in the early days of web hosting I recall that a customer had a domain name that was literally as long as ICANN would allow at the time. It was very nearly a full sentence. I don't recall the limit but this domain
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com
is 57 characters (not including .com) and I think that sounds familiar. One could have a lot of fun with that if they wanted to (and such as was done in this case).
Then there's
http://llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogog...
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.com
is 57 characters (not including .com) and I think that sounds familiar. One could have a lot of fun with that if they wanted to (and such as was done in this case).
Then there's
http://llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogog...
> Back in the early days of web hosting I recall that a customer had a domain name that was literally as long as ICANN would allow at the time. It was very nearly a full sentence. I don't recall the limit
RFC 1034 specifies:
"Each node has a label, which is zero to 63 octets in length."
And:
"To simplify implementations, the total number of octets that represent domain name (i.e., the sum of all label octets and label lengths) is limited to 255."
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1034
If that's been extended, I'm not aware of it.
RFC 1034 specifies:
"Each node has a label, which is zero to 63 octets in length."
And:
"To simplify implementations, the total number of octets that represent domain name (i.e., the sum of all label octets and label lengths) is limited to 255."
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1034
If that's been extended, I'm not aware of it.
Some companies still don't mind long domain names.
This one launched very recently: https://www.hardrockcasinonorthernindiana.com
Nearby, the Chicago Botanic Garden went short: https://ohwow.org
This one launched very recently: https://www.hardrockcasinonorthernindiana.com
Nearby, the Chicago Botanic Garden went short: https://ohwow.org
Original name of Facebook's domain was thefacebook.com but they realized it was too long and that "the" was unnecessary so they bought facebook.com
I think domain names are like company names or brands you don't want to have long company name or brand name because nobody will remember it.
I think domain names are like company names or brands you don't want to have long company name or brand name because nobody will remember it.
It's been years since I've seen or heard an ad for dontbeaweekendparent.com, but I still remember it, even though there's zero chance I'll ever need their services. Sometimes a long domain name can be useful.
I remember weallgetthingscheaperwhenwebuyinagroup.com
Which I think was advertised on TV in the UK when I was a teen
howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com
doesthemailruntoday.com
Are the two I like.
doesthemailruntoday.com
Are the two I like.
>http://llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogog...
Welsh place names can be brilliantly literal, Aberystwyth for example is "mouth of the river Ystwyth". Llanfairpwllgwyngyll... means "St Mary's church of the pool of the white hazels over against the pool of St Tysilio Gogo" but the name was completely contrived in the Victorian era to promote tourism to Anglesey.
Welsh place names can be brilliantly literal, Aberystwyth for example is "mouth of the river Ystwyth". Llanfairpwllgwyngyll... means "St Mary's church of the pool of the white hazels over against the pool of St Tysilio Gogo" but the name was completely contrived in the Victorian era to promote tourism to Anglesey.
i also own the maximum length aaaaaa.com domain, but i had issues with connecting it lol. working on having it redirect to this domain though
I remember this one: http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledresse... - sadly, it appears they gave up the site, but Wayback Machine also remembers it.
Oh my gosh- you will not believe this: THAT IS THE SITE I WAS TALKING ABOUT!
I was aware of that place name, and clicked the link hoping to find an audio file or link to youtube video that would give an example of how to pronounce it.
Who needs this when you can simply use Google search results URL
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
Yeah and it's always annoying to get the original url from google search page. :(
Meet AMP URLs.
This reminds me, I did a little investigation into what the actually URL length limits are per browser. Here is the blog post in case you are interested:
https://joelregus.com/posts/url_length_limits/
https://joelregus.com/posts/url_length_limits/
> Disclaimer: Since there is a maximum letter count to a URL, there is a slight chance your resulting URL will be too long to use. No worries, try running it through a site like bit.ly and then paste that one over here. Every resulting URL ends up having a minimum number of characters, so your URL will still be plenty long!
This seems like something you can trivially solve yourself. Is there any good reason why you push this issue on the user?
This seems like something you can trivially solve yourself. Is there any good reason why you push this issue on the user?
I think it is because it is not implemented the way (I imagine) URL shorteners to be implemented with a database back-end to map the short tokens to the actual sites. Instead it just performs a reversible transform on the URL. This way the site is really just a static website (and I imagine a lot cheaper for the owner who can't be interested in laying out a lot of money for this).
But this is just a lot of speculation on my part which means I'm probably wrong about at least one aspect.
But this is just a lot of speculation on my part which means I'm probably wrong about at least one aspect.
There isn't really "a" maximum count. There's a variety of enforced limits. If the standard(s) even set an official one, it's not something a lot of things pay attention to. You also can encounter problems with things like command lines enforcing their own limits, making a URL that your browser may or may not be happy with not be something you can directly curl or wget.
I never found an RFC documenting an URL size limit.
Since there really isn't any set maximum, I didn't have anything to base it off of. I might actually remove that section since I've seen 24k-long URLs work perfectly fine. Also I would have to do some reworking to have that happen since the url lengthening is all browser-side right now.
haha nice! I built the exact opposite the shortest possible URL shortener :) https://t.ly/
Thankfully, your URL can be lengthened to this:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
For many years (but no longer) Vince Cate's Offshore Information Services had a DNS A record for the ccTLD "ai", so that http://ai/ was a valid URL that worked in browsers. (A few people also had e-mail addresses @ai.)
Today, there are no longer any TLDs of any kind with their own A records.
https://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone
Today, there are no longer any TLDs of any kind with their own A records.
https://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone
Neat! That link worked for me on the latest Chrome ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't understand how that could be (!).
Perhaps it auto-prepends "www" to it (since that worked for me on FF).
Found this old comment about it (of course it had to be a long URL)
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Works here, too. Chrome on Android. Got a very basic html site with Vi ce Cates' name on it.
Firefox, works just fine.
But... it doesn't have a DNS record anymore!
You sure?
$ dig +noall +answer ai.
ai. 80534 IN A 209.59.119.34Huh, this is weird!
The DNS record is no longer in the root zone itself (I think it used to be?) and some recursive resolvers seem to filter out the bare-TLD query or response. But the A record still exists inside the ai zone... so I'm not sure who is right, so to speak!
The DNS record is no longer in the root zone itself (I think it used to be?) and some recursive resolvers seem to filter out the bare-TLD query or response. But the A record still exists inside the ai zone... so I'm not sure who is right, so to speak!
The A record was never in the root zone. The root zone has an NS record for ai TLD which delegates authority to ai nameservers.
You can try `dig @a.root-servers.net ai NS` to get the nameserver `a.lactld.org.` which is authoritative for ai. You can now try `dig @a.lactld.org ai A` to get it (that's how recursive resolves generally work)
You can try `dig @a.root-servers.net ai NS` to get the nameserver `a.lactld.org.` which is authoritative for ai. You can now try `dig @a.lactld.org ai A` to get it (that's how recursive resolves generally work)
Yeah, so I think I'm seeing something weird where some software isn't allowing this particular recursive query? I'll dig into it more.
By the way:
> The A record was never in the root zone.
Are you sure of that? I don't have any proof, but my impression was that the DNS registry for ai (which was also just Vince Cate...) was able to ask for it because at one time the root zone was less restrictive in what RRtypes could be placed there for TLDs. But that might just be repeating someone else's mistaken impression.
OK, I went and looked in the Internet Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20090716164810/http://www.intern...
and this version of the root zone from 2009 does indeed not have an A record for ai, just ordinary NS delegations. So it seems like your explanation is confirmed, and there must be a change in some recursive resolver behavior. (I tried from four different Linux systems on different networks and all refused to resolve it, so there really must be something that's changed more widely, not just my home router.)
By the way:
> The A record was never in the root zone.
Are you sure of that? I don't have any proof, but my impression was that the DNS registry for ai (which was also just Vince Cate...) was able to ask for it because at one time the root zone was less restrictive in what RRtypes could be placed there for TLDs. But that might just be repeating someone else's mistaken impression.
OK, I went and looked in the Internet Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20090716164810/http://www.intern...
and this version of the root zone from 2009 does indeed not have an A record for ai, just ordinary NS delegations. So it seems like your explanation is confirmed, and there must be a change in some recursive resolver behavior. (I tried from four different Linux systems on different networks and all refused to resolve it, so there really must be something that's changed more widely, not just my home router.)
You can try http://ai./
> Are you sure of that?
I checked an archive of root zone data from June 1999 to May 2021[0], and there don't seem to be A records for any TLD. Not sure why you're having this issue, but I'm curious to know which Linux distro/software doesn't resolve ai.
[0] http://stats.research.icann.org/root-zone/data/root-zone-arc...
I checked an archive of root zone data from June 1999 to May 2021[0], and there don't seem to be A records for any TLD. Not sure why you're having this issue, but I'm curious to know which Linux distro/software doesn't resolve ai.
[0] http://stats.research.icann.org/root-zone/data/root-zone-arc...
It looks like it's systemd-resolve. I just checked on several machines and, when using nslookup to query the recursive nameserver that systemd-resolve is forwarding to, the ai A record does resolve, while when using systemd-resolve itself, or the local instance on 127.0.0.53 configured via /etc/resolv.conf, it returns a failure every time.
I'll have to look into this some more.
Edit: I think I found it! From systemd-resolved.service(8):
Presumably ai is the only name on the Internet concretely impacted by this behavior. :-(
I'll have to look into this some more.
Edit: I think I found it! From systemd-resolved.service(8):
· Single-label names are routed to all local interfaces capable of IP
multicasting, using the LLMNR protocol. Lookups for IPv4 addresses
are only sent via LLMNR on IPv4, and lookups for IPv6 addresses are
only sent via LLMNR on IPv6. Lookups for the locally configured
host name and the "_gateway" host name are never routed to LLMNR.
· Multi-label names are routed to all local interfaces that have a
DNS server configured, plus the globally configured DNS server if
there is one. Address lookups from the link-local address range are
never routed to DNS.
Presumably ai is the only name on the Internet concretely impacted by this behavior. :-(
I can't edit this anymore, but further down in this thread it turned out that it's just systemd that refuses to attempt a global DNS A lookup for a single-label name, so this record DOES still exist, just like it ever did, but all the machines that I've tried on for the past few years as well as yesterday were Linux systems using a local systemd stub resolver that enforced this rule. :-(
I guess I should get some servers running other operating systems, or something.
It might be difficult to convince the systemd developers that this special case should be removed just because of this one anomalous DNS name...
I guess I should get some servers running other operating systems, or something.
It might be difficult to convince the systemd developers that this special case should be removed just because of this one anomalous DNS name...
There's also https://www.dj/
curl ai
Mind sharing some background? I'm curious about how you snagged the domain, how you've managed to monetize it, and what the competition is like in this space.
You've shortened 6,463,545 links so far. Assuming you're using a charset of [A-Za-z0-9], that gives you 14,776,336 total possible 4-character URLs. Almost half way there!
What's your plan once you reach the 4-character limit? Roll over to 5, or something fancier?
What's your plan once you reach the 4-character limit? Roll over to 5, or something fancier?
Yes, you are correct. I don't have anything fancy planned. Users with accounts are able to customize the ending so this will increase the availability. Currently, Bitly is up to 7 characters long when you create a random short URL. T.LY is already 2 characters shorter and there are still plenty of short random URLs 62^5 = 916,132,832
years ago, we asked bit.ly if they could vendor our link shortening and tracking. Turned out we were already a couple multiples larger than them in terms of link processing. our use case is a bit different though. Instead of one link given to many, we tend to be one link given to one recipient. Optimizing this kind of problem is interesting and fun.
It could be shorter still! Stop forcing HTTPS!
HTTPS is not required. t.ly works fine without "https://"
Really? The browsers I usually use to test if a site works without HTTPS (IE6 and IE8 on XP SP2) can't load it. Weird!
the http url is a 301 redirect to https so thats why it doesn't load ultimately
Disappointing; that doesn't really count!
Curious to how you are still running IE6 :)
It's the default for XP SP2.
Ok so curious why you are running Windows XP :)
Because I have a need for Internet Explorer 6-8!
Why do you use Internet Explorer 6-8 on the internet?
Because I have some software that has it as a hard-dependency.
so ftp:// ? or is there something shorter?
HTTP!
I think http is longer than ftp :P
I lengthened the lengthener URL about 7 times before my browser complained it was too long
I just couldn't resist.
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
As a usual incognito reader, the consent page has made this a lot less funnier than it used to be.
Don't forget Total Asshole Compression!
TAC* is the best compression format available for the web today! By using revolutionary scientific methods, research teams at RSG and the Beige Programming ensemble were able to a compose a complex software tool that expels many of the myths that surround modern file compression techniques. The secret of TAC compression is not that it makes files smaller, but that it makes files bigger, much bigger.* This provides the end user with a compression tool to meet almost any need in today's bandwidth and gig overloaded computing world.
http://tac-compression.com
TAC* is the best compression format available for the web today! By using revolutionary scientific methods, research teams at RSG and the Beige Programming ensemble were able to a compose a complex software tool that expels many of the myths that surround modern file compression techniques. The secret of TAC compression is not that it makes files smaller, but that it makes files bigger, much bigger.* This provides the end user with a compression tool to meet almost any need in today's bandwidth and gig overloaded computing world.
http://tac-compression.com
I was inspired by a certain someone's meandering speech patterns to do something similar some years ago: https://www.biglyurl.com/
"So that's what things would be like if I'd invented the thing longer. Oh, a man can dream though."
Awesome to see a Replit app on top of HN! Our hosted apps proxy requests per second doubled (3k to 6k) by virtue of this being on HN.
This app is fully made and hosted on Replit using Replit DB too:
Frontend: https://replit.com/@piemadd/url-lengthener
Backend: https://replit.com/@piemadd/ax56api
Check out other Replit Apps here (launched yesterday): https://replit.com/apps
This app is fully made and hosted on Replit using Replit DB too:
Frontend: https://replit.com/@piemadd/url-lengthener
Backend: https://replit.com/@piemadd/ax56api
Check out other Replit Apps here (launched yesterday): https://replit.com/apps
What's Replit?
Online programming environment, community, and platform: https://replit.com
Related: The longest valid domain name possible http://a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.oo.pp.qqq.rrrr.ssssss.ttt...
[deleted]
A nice feature is that when you design a URL lengthener, you can make the service stateless. The backend doesn't need to store every URL that it was ever given. This contrasts with URL shortener services, which must store state in order to generate very short URLs. (In theory, shorteners can use stateless compression like zlib, but it wouldn't save enough space to be worth it.)
funnily enough, thats exactly what the lengthener is doing!
The author is a highschool student
Dumb question: the lengthener prepends the URL with "\x20\x0b" strings which are then not removed on the other end. So the link inserted in the <meta> redirect ends up looking like
" \x0b \x0b \x0bhttps://www.example.org"
so what you're seeing is the creation of a zero width space. When you combine an \x20 and an \x0b, it makes a zero width space, which your browser ends up ignoring. Only reason these are in there are to ensure the URLs are at a minimum length. Who wants a mere 20 character URL when you can have a minimum of 250 characters.
Thanks!
Reminds me of an API I worked on. We had a max length for some token. A client had an incrementing sequence number, so they decided to pad it out to the max length. It looked something like this:
A00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
A00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002
etc
A00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
A00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002
etc
That does solve the problem of having to worry about whether the data is sorted lexically or by numeric value.
Fyi - I posted this link to the sub https://www.reddit.com/r/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/
It seems to fit very well there.
It seems to fit very well there.
1 step ahead of you ;) https://www.reddit.com/r/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/comments/nc382v/a...
Nice! Man, I even search first - I wonder why I didn't see it.
On a related note, I did a client side (really badly coded) link lengthner 5 or 6 years ago. : https://rickynotaro.github.io/B.U.R.N/
It basically just base64 encode the url to generate the link and decode the url arg to do the redirect.
I also own this email address that I made just for fun: JesuisLeProprietaireDeCeNomDeDomaineTresLongBonjourCaVaBienAller@icirickynotarodemontrealetceciestunnomdedomainebeaucouptroplong.club
It basically just base64 encode the url to generate the link and decode the url arg to do the redirect.
I also own this email address that I made just for fun: JesuisLeProprietaireDeCeNomDeDomaineTresLongBonjourCaVaBienAller@icirickynotarodemontrealetceciestunnomdedomainebeaucouptroplong.club
I keep http://www.whyisyourdomainnamesolong.com as an email forwarder. Surprisingly memorable.
[deleted]
Somewhat related
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19511735 (45 points | March 28, 2019 | 32 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24229085 (17 points | 8 months | 7 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19511735 (45 points | March 28, 2019 | 32 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24229085 (17 points | 8 months | 7 comments)
The multiple efforts thing is a lesson I should learn but refuse to do.
It just feels so spammy. I don't want to touch that world intentionally but it works.
It gets worse
I had two similar services, one that used a page's meta information to create URL stubs so that the link would have the semantic meaning in it instead of say "id=27158278". It'd also (this is about 10 years ago) fill in opengraph holes if found and present the social media card generators with more complete information.
It also had a JavaScript plugin that would fill in title tags to your anchor links so that you could hover over a link and get the destination page's title.
I thought it was really useful but I literally got nothing but either silence or criticism. It was really demotivating. I just abandoned it.
It sucks to create something that you believe in, that you like, that you find value in and get nothing but hot bottles of shit from everyone else. Nothing constructive, just demoralizing abuse. I've tried so hard to never be that person. The receiving end of that is awful. It's never ok. (I should make a list of "never events" in open source/programming (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_event) not in engineering negligence but human empathy negligence.)
Anyways, then I had another project (also about 10 years ago) where I registered a bunch of news sounding sites, like say, themercurystar.com and as a url "shortener" it created absurd sensationalist news headlines as the "shortened" URL from a grammar generator. So for instance, you may get a url like themercurystar.com/arts/current/henry-kissinger-sings-dances-on-broadway-in-bye-bye-birdie or /taylor-swift-proves-hodge-conjecture-pnas etc.
It was complete with the opengraph of a stock image and a repurposing of the generative title with more filler to make it like look real, redirecting the crawlers to a fake shell page to satisfy the meta content and redirecting the humans to the actual link to be shortened.
That one was probably too good. I found it hilarious but apparently I was the only one in on the joke.
So failure again. Ah well.
They're still great and I'd gladly launch them again.
It just feels so spammy. I don't want to touch that world intentionally but it works.
It gets worse
I had two similar services, one that used a page's meta information to create URL stubs so that the link would have the semantic meaning in it instead of say "id=27158278". It'd also (this is about 10 years ago) fill in opengraph holes if found and present the social media card generators with more complete information.
It also had a JavaScript plugin that would fill in title tags to your anchor links so that you could hover over a link and get the destination page's title.
I thought it was really useful but I literally got nothing but either silence or criticism. It was really demotivating. I just abandoned it.
It sucks to create something that you believe in, that you like, that you find value in and get nothing but hot bottles of shit from everyone else. Nothing constructive, just demoralizing abuse. I've tried so hard to never be that person. The receiving end of that is awful. It's never ok. (I should make a list of "never events" in open source/programming (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_event) not in engineering negligence but human empathy negligence.)
Anyways, then I had another project (also about 10 years ago) where I registered a bunch of news sounding sites, like say, themercurystar.com and as a url "shortener" it created absurd sensationalist news headlines as the "shortened" URL from a grammar generator. So for instance, you may get a url like themercurystar.com/arts/current/henry-kissinger-sings-dances-on-broadway-in-bye-bye-birdie or /taylor-swift-proves-hodge-conjecture-pnas etc.
It was complete with the opengraph of a stock image and a repurposing of the generative title with more filler to make it like look real, redirecting the crawlers to a fake shell page to satisfy the meta content and redirecting the humans to the actual link to be shortened.
That one was probably too good. I found it hilarious but apparently I was the only one in on the joke.
So failure again. Ah well.
They're still great and I'd gladly launch them again.
I don't understand. Are you the creator of the other service?
The site in question here? no.
It's more like you work on something that flops and you see similar things get traction.
There's bookshelves full of analysis on this problem. I've got a few of those bookshelves in my library, a major preoccupation of mine for maybe 15 years.
But one of the legitimate reasons the big books don't touch upon is the agitation and hustle game. Probably because those authors just do it without thinking about it.
Geoffrey Moore, Steve Blank, Clayton Christensen, there's a certain aggrandizing precocity they all have that they seem to look past. It's somewhere on the road to carnival barking and clickbaiting.
The line on that road that I refuse to cross is likely way too conservative.
In fact I've had things that became popular by other random people playing that game who I've never met, just for the social cache or whatever endorphins that thing does for those people.
That's the core strategy of virality and trying to hook influencers.
It's a trend I've been noticing within the past 6 months or so. When something catches I'll do some research and find an almost irritating number of failed nearly identical attempts.
The "one note band approach" looks like it's a decent strategy, I just have to get over how objectionable it feels to me.
Being a bit more shameless doesn't necessarily always appear to be a bad move
It's more like you work on something that flops and you see similar things get traction.
There's bookshelves full of analysis on this problem. I've got a few of those bookshelves in my library, a major preoccupation of mine for maybe 15 years.
But one of the legitimate reasons the big books don't touch upon is the agitation and hustle game. Probably because those authors just do it without thinking about it.
Geoffrey Moore, Steve Blank, Clayton Christensen, there's a certain aggrandizing precocity they all have that they seem to look past. It's somewhere on the road to carnival barking and clickbaiting.
The line on that road that I refuse to cross is likely way too conservative.
In fact I've had things that became popular by other random people playing that game who I've never met, just for the social cache or whatever endorphins that thing does for those people.
That's the core strategy of virality and trying to hook influencers.
It's a trend I've been noticing within the past 6 months or so. When something catches I'll do some research and find an almost irritating number of failed nearly identical attempts.
The "one note band approach" looks like it's a decent strategy, I just have to get over how objectionable it feels to me.
Being a bit more shameless doesn't necessarily always appear to be a bad move
Example result:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Stellar!
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Stellar!
For the curious, aaa[...].com is just converting your string to hex, and then replacing the hex with various types of "A"'s.
If you wanted to use an alphabet other than 16 characters, you could do arbitrary base conversion: https://convert.zamicol.com/
This would allow you to use more or less characters.
If you wanted to use an alphabet other than 16 characters, you could do arbitrary base conversion: https://convert.zamicol.com/
This would allow you to use more or less characters.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This can also be done using data urls. You can make a long URL encoding a HTML doc with a meta redirect
Hehe. Reminds me of Freaking Huge URL, which sadly is no longer with us.
https://lifehacker.com/freaking-huge-url-lengthens-too-short...
https://lifehacker.com/freaking-huge-url-lengthens-too-short...
I guess I'm not the only one drinking tonight. =)
Anyway, cool project. It's okay to build something for a laugh every now then. I know these days sometimes I forget I used to do this for fun. Have a good weekend all.
Anyway, cool project. It's okay to build something for a laugh every now then. I know these days sometimes I forget I used to do this for fun. Have a good weekend all.
I've never thought about a practical URL that couldn't be accessed by specific browsers based on length as something someone would explicitly want versus something to avoid until this post.
Absolutely irrelevant, but I cannot help but remember the nooooooooooooooo button.
http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/
http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/
For anyone who wants to self host a URL lengthener https://github.com/asim/url
Tried it on https://news.ycombinator.com/. Malwarebytes instantly blocked it. LoL.
On iOS, the location bar animates scrolling through the aaaaaas when you navigate to the site. Someone had to design that animation. Thank you, anonymous designer.
Chia coin html internet
Interesting where is frontier who can make most long 256+ url shorters & lengther vector hahah
like tiny.cc -> aaaaaaaa...aaa -> goog.gl -> bbb...bb -> etc
Interesting where is frontier who can make most long 256+ url shorters & lengther vector hahah
like tiny.cc -> aaaaaaaa...aaa -> goog.gl -> bbb...bb -> etc
That video and tom mentioning base65536 was actually the initial inspiration for this
Funny, I present a fictional URL shortener called Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious as an example in my book Street Coder :)
Scraper? Honeypot?
I guess my tinfoil hat is too tight. While its cool and funny I inherently don't trust things like this.
Edit: the concern is about data collection and profiling over time, it could essentially be an advertising model, you get an idea of things a particular cookie/IP/fingerprint does. depending one what is in your original link, all kinds of ids and data can be sitting in the url alone. Does a link to my social media account potentially expose my PII?
I guess my tinfoil hat is too tight. While its cool and funny I inherently don't trust things like this.
Edit: the concern is about data collection and profiling over time, it could essentially be an advertising model, you get an idea of things a particular cookie/IP/fingerprint does. depending one what is in your original link, all kinds of ids and data can be sitting in the url alone. Does a link to my social media account potentially expose my PII?
What exactly do you not trust here? What bad could come out of you typing a URL in this website?
Why not?
Hacker News URL Lengthened...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
lol neat project, this would get bonus points from me if it made them look like Amazon product URLs :)
Love it. Always looking for new weird side projects. Can’t be too productive on your hobby software
Slightly off topic, but does anyone know of a good, self-hosted URL shortener?
Looks great. But I don't known any scenes we need to use this function.
[deleted]
Reminds me of David Rees’ urlshorteningservicefortwitter.com
really isn't long enough. was expecting 56 subdomains of 56 a's, with at least 5 times the path length
I rarely use Discord these days, but when I need to link something next time, I'll use this service. (Discord still doesn't support hyperlinks.)
I would love to have a longer url.
I'm a bit disappointed that the lengthened URL for http://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... itself doesn't work. That is:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
EDIT: Uh, I don't know what I did differently, but this one works:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
EDIT: Looks like the site is actively being updated, there are new option checkboxes, the self-reference link only works with "Use a path instead of an URL" checked
EDIT: I repeatedly lengthened maybe a dozen times, that seems to get it stuck in a loop:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
EDIT: Uh, I don't know what I did differently, but this one works:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
EDIT: Looks like the site is actively being updated, there are new option checkboxes, the self-reference link only works with "Use a path instead of an URL" checked
EDIT: I repeatedly lengthened maybe a dozen times, that seems to get it stuck in a loop:
https://aaa.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
I think you were accessing the site while I was working on some changes haha! I think whats happening in the one while goes in an endless loop, your URL legitimately got too long for browsers to comprehend so some data got cut off
I love long URLs and build them into my apps for sharing. You can have powerful apps that are 100% clientside and use just a dumb file web server.
For example, here's a URL that contains both the grammar for a language that compiles to CSS and also example code. Works like a charm.
https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer/#grammar%0A%20toolin...
For example, here's a URL that contains both the grammar for a language that compiles to CSS and also example code. Works like a charm.
https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer/#grammar%0A%20toolin...
Having written two apps that do this, I can confirm that it is an amazing technique, and criminally underutilized! My projects store and render entire pages from the URL and encrypt URLs (respectively):
https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages
https://github.com/jstrieb/link-lock
https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages
https://github.com/jstrieb/link-lock
Love it!
Have you thought about having a non-obfuscated pretty version?
In addition to this:
https://jstrieb.github.io/urlpages/editor/#eyJjc3MiOiJ3aG9tI...
Offer a pretty version like:
Have you thought about having a non-obfuscated pretty version?
In addition to this:
https://jstrieb.github.io/urlpages/editor/#eyJjc3MiOiJ3aG9tI...
Offer a pretty version like:
https://jstrieb.github.io/urlpages/editor/#html...html-here.~css...body;background:red;~javascript...document.write('this-was-written-by-javascript.')I appreciate the kind words!
Hadn't considered it originally because I was concerned about allowable characters in the URL, and jumped to base64 instead of leaning more heavily on the actual set of acceptable characters to make it readable.
In hindsight, this is a great thing to add to my next project that (inevitably) uses this technique, thanks!
Hadn't considered it originally because I was concerned about allowable characters in the URL, and jumped to base64 instead of leaning more heavily on the actual set of acceptable characters to make it readable.
In hindsight, this is a great thing to add to my next project that (inevitably) uses this technique, thanks!
funny project but why are you tracking the people visiting the website??
Not tracking actual users, but more general metrics. Genuinely wanted to see num of visitors but since the site is static this was probably the most privacy-oriented ones I could think of. Trust me, i'm not sure what data i'd be able to sell from this legitimate joke of a site lol
Awesome!
fun fact. in the browser wars of 1993(?) i looked at the specs from netscape (mozilla dady for the young folks) and microsoft (what w3c? ha!) and netscape release a browser spec that said "X must support up to Y", as in "url must be up to 1024 chars", "cookies must be up to 1mb", etc...
then microsoft release IE4 (or 6?) web spec. It was literally a copy of netscape's but with "up to" replaced with "at least".
and from this day on, nobody knows about limits on the standard and everything was up in the air, just so sites could work on IE4 and be broken on netscape. Thanks microsoft!
I did some experiments to test the actual URL limit of IE. at the time it was around 4MB, but IE would still go over if you got creative with hostnames levels and odd schemas.
-- quick edit:
keep in mind, in 1993, the money from giving out free browsers where on the servers: netscape server vs microsoft IIS (just like today giving free browsers the money is on makig it easier to access YOUR content --e.g. default search, etc).
Making your browser crash the competitor server mean that server was seen as lower quality. (Same thing with google deliberately crashing performance of firefox on their services today[0])
The point of microsoft making this change was to force netscape to update their server as they increase the URL limit arbitrarily to all IE users.
[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
then microsoft release IE4 (or 6?) web spec. It was literally a copy of netscape's but with "up to" replaced with "at least".
and from this day on, nobody knows about limits on the standard and everything was up in the air, just so sites could work on IE4 and be broken on netscape. Thanks microsoft!
I did some experiments to test the actual URL limit of IE. at the time it was around 4MB, but IE would still go over if you got creative with hostnames levels and odd schemas.
-- quick edit:
keep in mind, in 1993, the money from giving out free browsers where on the servers: netscape server vs microsoft IIS (just like today giving free browsers the money is on makig it easier to access YOUR content --e.g. default search, etc).
Making your browser crash the competitor server mean that server was seen as lower quality. (Same thing with google deliberately crashing performance of firefox on their services today[0])
The point of microsoft making this change was to force netscape to update their server as they increase the URL limit arbitrarily to all IE users.
[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
I was on a 12-person failed project, the kind of which you owe millions to the govt. We had a problem with the search, we couldn’t get performance.
I told my boss: “See, they wrote ‘The old search responded in 2 seconds. The new search must take at least the same time.’ We could almost add a sleep(2000) before starting the search.”
He went with it. They dealt to drop the requirement on the performance of the search on a “mutual agreement.”
I told my boss: “See, they wrote ‘The old search responded in 2 seconds. The new search must take at least the same time.’ We could almost add a sleep(2000) before starting the search.”
He went with it. They dealt to drop the requirement on the performance of the search on a “mutual agreement.”
Ah yes. Checkbox Driven Development. AKA Monkey Paw Development, where you give exactly what was asked for; it remains surprisingly popular in the government and enterprise spaces.
I've worked in such places. The reason it is that way is because you will receive a broken description/specification/story of what you are supposed to implement. You have a choice to make when that happens, you either implement it as specified or you reject it because it is broken. The problem is that if you do reject it then it will take about 6 months to get back a specification that is broken in another way and then you have to make the same choice...
So after a few iterations you just say "fuck it" and implement it as specified and then hope that you get a chance to fix it before shipping it (or that it doesn't become your headache later on...).
So after a few iterations you just say "fuck it" and implement it as specified and then hope that you get a chance to fix it before shipping it (or that it doesn't become your headache later on...).
I've been there too, and I know. I'm not speaking to the choices devs make (rock and hard place, as you say), but the choices the org makes. For government work is driven by Congress' procurement process, but for enterprise is entirely on upper leadership's perceived need to avoid risk. Which is ironically hilarious, since such approaches guarantee higher risk, in that they pretty much universally lead to late delivery of broken features.
Enterprise developer here. Exactly this. If you reject the spec, you won't get another one before the deadline that was committed before you got the spec you want to reject.
Instead of implementing the obvious intention of the spec and waiting to see if anyone complains?
The intention usually isn't obvious. The stakeholders have spent so much time documenting, in depth, the solution that they want, while spending no real time documenting or communicating the specifics intricacies of the -problem-.
That's the issue in a nutshell; Checkbox Driven Development implies "if we just define the solution well enough upfront, we'll get what we need!" instead of "if we define the problem well enough, and let dev pitch us solutions, and iterate as we go, we'll get what we need". Which implies that the devs are not to be trusted to come up with a solution themselves.
To deviate from expectations and be congratulated, you have to, A. Be certain you're doing the right thing, and B. Have an audience that can recognize you did the right thing. Both of those require a level of trust that is just missing in this sort of org.
That's the issue in a nutshell; Checkbox Driven Development implies "if we just define the solution well enough upfront, we'll get what we need!" instead of "if we define the problem well enough, and let dev pitch us solutions, and iterate as we go, we'll get what we need". Which implies that the devs are not to be trusted to come up with a solution themselves.
To deviate from expectations and be congratulated, you have to, A. Be certain you're doing the right thing, and B. Have an audience that can recognize you did the right thing. Both of those require a level of trust that is just missing in this sort of org.
Exactly, and sometimes to fix the issues with the spec you'll have to go far enough off script that it gets very obvious to people you dont want attention from.
"Monkey Paw Development" was a new one for me :) Thank you! Great analogy. Reminds me of this :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDA3_5982h8
Yeah, I just coined it while making the post. :P Less a "also (currently) known as" and more of a "also (should be) known as". Certainly how I'll be referring to it in cynical moments from here on out.
I was reminded of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W_wd9Qf0IE
Requirements are hard in dysfunctional organizations, or those with more stakeholders than capability and agility.
Requirements are hard upfront, period, to the point I'd say that any organization trying to set them upfront is dysfunctional, tautologically. Making all the decisions when you have the least amount of information is a Bad Idea.
Also, how long will it take to build and how much will it cost? :)
This is where Agile ought to improve things, but then SAFE came along and we were back to square one.
This is where Agile ought to improve things, but then SAFE came along and we were back to square one.
but there are some architectual significant requirements, which have to be known upfront.
I both agree and disagree with you.
There are requirements that will affect architecture that, if they're guessed at and turn out to be wrong, will lead to massive refactoring and/or large amounts of effort being thrown out. 100%.
Where I disagree from most businesses is in the implicit belief they have that seems to be "better for devs to be idle than for devs to work on code that will be thrown away". I'd rather take a guess and start work; best case we're right and are ahead; worst case we're wrong and have learned some useful lessons.
Which you'll note is the same dilemma as every other decision related to the project, with the only difference being the scope.
There are requirements that will affect architecture that, if they're guessed at and turn out to be wrong, will lead to massive refactoring and/or large amounts of effort being thrown out. 100%.
Where I disagree from most businesses is in the implicit belief they have that seems to be "better for devs to be idle than for devs to work on code that will be thrown away". I'd rather take a guess and start work; best case we're right and are ahead; worst case we're wrong and have learned some useful lessons.
Which you'll note is the same dilemma as every other decision related to the project, with the only difference being the scope.
I wonder the extent to which those two specifications describe the exact same organizations.
Don't ever go to https://i.reddit.com/r/maliciouscompliance
You only have so many hours in your day.
Way back when, we used to remind people to be careful what they wished for in case they got it.
You only have so many hours in your day.
Way back when, we used to remind people to be careful what they wished for in case they got it.
Do you happen to have the exact wording? As far as I can tell these mean the same thing.
1. "You must support URL length up to 100 characters" -> your browser must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones)
2. "Your supported URL length must be at least 100 character" -> You must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones)
1. "You must support URL length up to 100 characters" -> your browser must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones)
2. "Your supported URL length must be at least 100 character" -> You must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones)
I don't know the exact wording, a gracious reading might be (as directed at people writing html)
1. Never use a URL longer than 100 characters
2. Go ahead and use a URL longer than 100 characters
As for the true intent? I've no clue.
1. Never use a URL longer than 100 characters
2. Go ahead and use a URL longer than 100 characters
As for the true intent? I've no clue.
Didn't you confuse 'at least' with 'at most'?
You are welcome to try to find it. I just failed :(
"At least" means more than or equal to. In other words, the 'least' it can be is 100 characters, with no upper bound.
Both sentences require browsers to support 100 characters.
Both sentences permit browsers to support 101 characters.
Both sentences permit browsers to support 101 characters.
Exactly, they're functionally the same.
On second pass, you're right. They're the same.
Yes but "you must support up to 100 characters" also has no upper bound - supporting 200 characters also fits that requirement.
So if you were a programmer on a project and you were given a spec that says "up to 100", you would just make it unbounded, and for all intents and purposes completely ignore the spec?
"Must" and "Must Not" are keywords in formal spec. If it says "Must support up to 100" and doesn't say "Must Not support over 100" then I would consider the upper limit to be whatever limit is sane for the data type.
So you would pick an arbitrary upper limit based on your own notion of what is sane. Picking such a limit, you would still need to write the same error handling code for limits, but it would happen at maybe 200. And the next programmer who inherits your code looks at the spec and your code and has to guess "why 200"? And it becomes lore. Which is specifically worse than writing to the spec.
The spec doesn't exist. It's undefined. "Must support up to 100" is not a limit, it's a lower bound.
I can see where you're coming from, it does read like "MUST support up to 100 characters (and MAY support more of you choose).
But honestly I think it's a bad practice to build the "may" part, because it's not explicit. The person who wrote the spec just as easily could have intended it to be "MUST support up to 100 (and may not go over 100)". So by not setting a bound you're gambling with your implementation being rejected, but setting a bound at 100 satisfies both possible "implied clauses" of the requirement and should not be rejected.
But honestly I think it's a bad practice to build the "may" part, because it's not explicit. The person who wrote the spec just as easily could have intended it to be "MUST support up to 100 (and may not go over 100)". So by not setting a bound you're gambling with your implementation being rejected, but setting a bound at 100 satisfies both possible "implied clauses" of the requirement and should not be rejected.
The supported URL length is at least 100 characters, not the URL length.
I spent some time looking at similar specs for more recent browsers, but wasn't able to find anything useful. This was for a proof-of-concept I made that stores entire web pages in URLs (creatively named "URL Pages") by base64-encoding them and putting them in the URL fragment (the part after the "#").
https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages
The URLs this thing generates get pretty damn big sometimes, since I never got around to implementing compression. I can confirm that massive URLs from pages with inline images do work, but probably take some not-so-optimized code paths because they make my computer's fans spin up. Click at your own peril:
https://git.io/Jss7V
https://github.com/jstrieb/urlpages
The URLs this thing generates get pretty damn big sometimes, since I never got around to implementing compression. I can confirm that massive URLs from pages with inline images do work, but probably take some not-so-optimized code paths because they make my computer's fans spin up. Click at your own peril:
https://git.io/Jss7V
I made a service to store arbitrary files as URLs that is similar. The hard part is files that are too large, I can handle files up to 5mb if you click on them all via local storage. Compression helps a lot as making them base64 increases the size quite a bit.
https://podje.li
https://podje.li
Could you make whole webpages just through urls? Such as they will completely portable? Portable being taken with a grain of sand ofc.
not the entire content, but a hash id is pretty common https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme
[deleted]
Yes, I did this for self-contained reports in maybe 2014. All images referenced (containing diagrams) were embedded as data URIs. Restrictions are AFAIK more picky now, though so YMMV in 2021.
Cool project! It is kind of interesting that the link is the content, not sure it’s always useful, but for twitter like short form content perhaps?
Well webpages themselves including links, the embedding would need to be recursive.
I needed to send data over GET in 2012/2013 and built my own tiny LZW-alike compression to squeeze as much as possible into the 100kb which seemed to be the safe limit for non-ie browsers at the time
That's really interesting, I'd wondered if that was feasible! A few years ago I needed to send myself notes and URLs from a work computer to look at later, so I put it into the browser as https://< my website >.com/index.html?saveforlater=note%20to%20myself
When I got home I'd search the server logs for "saveforlater" and retrieve my note. Though it might have been faster to just write it on a slip of paper.
When I got home I'd search the server logs for "saveforlater" and retrieve my note. Though it might have been faster to just write it on a slip of paper.
Here's the repo https://github.com/naugtur/ripper/
I did that too, but the limit in my language was around 1024 characters in URL's so had to make small packets to send data.
Okay, but you can already store web pages in URLs. `data:text/html,<h1>Hi%20there!</h1>`
You can even base64 encode them, if you want to.
You can even base64 encode them, if you want to.
This is true, but linking to data URIs no longer works. Many browsers block them for "security reasons." In Firefox, a link to that page is not clickable for me:
https://git.io/JssFK
From a convenience standpoint, it's also far less likely that a URL with an http: scheme will be blocked by a random web application than one with a data: scheme. For example it makes sharing on social media sites and chat applications more feasible.
https://git.io/JssFK
From a convenience standpoint, it's also far less likely that a URL with an http: scheme will be blocked by a random web application than one with a data: scheme. For example it makes sharing on social media sites and chat applications more feasible.
I don't know. There's a lot of problems but to me "at least" sounds like a more helpful phrasing. Browsers run in such heterogeneous compute environments (even back then) that "up to" basically cripples you to the lowest common denominator of all platforms you target. "At least" makes it mostly the HW vendors problem. Sure, MS was encountering this problem more because Windows ran on such a large range of HW but think about what the world would look like today if you had browser vendors putting caps for desktop browsers based on what mobile could support.
EDIT: For some limits. For other limits "up to" wording may be more appropriate & is still in use (e.g. storage).
EDIT: For some limits. For other limits "up to" wording may be more appropriate & is still in use (e.g. storage).
"At least" seems like a very good way of introducing a DoS vector.
I think that 1024 was probably too short as a limit, but I think that it does make sense to impose an arbitrary upper bound to reject malformed requests early.
I don't see what you mean by "the HW vendor's problem", I can assure you that any browser in existence is going to have an issue if you send a 1TB URL, while the NIC will have no issue transmitting it.
I think that 1024 was probably too short as a limit, but I think that it does make sense to impose an arbitrary upper bound to reject malformed requests early.
I don't see what you mean by "the HW vendor's problem", I can assure you that any browser in existence is going to have an issue if you send a 1TB URL, while the NIC will have no issue transmitting it.
You are correct, but microsoft must https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
And here's the answer to the sibling asking why it's a problem, since they mean exactly the same on practice :)
What it literally means and what people understand when reading it aren't the same thing. On this case, for people creating sites, "up to" leads immediately into the real meaning of the phrase, while "at least" strongly implies the opposite. But for people creating browsers, the implication is inverted.
What it literally means and what people understand when reading it aren't the same thing. On this case, for people creating sites, "up to" leads immediately into the real meaning of the phrase, while "at least" strongly implies the opposite. But for people creating browsers, the implication is inverted.
The URL can be up to 1024 characters. The browser must support at least 1024 character URLs.
They're 2 sides of the same coin, but MS didn't actually rephrase the sentence properly. Their version would have every URL have at least 1024 characters in it. Any less than that, and the browser should reject the URL as invalid.
They're 2 sides of the same coin, but MS didn't actually rephrase the sentence properly. Their version would have every URL have at least 1024 characters in it. Any less than that, and the browser should reject the URL as invalid.
> Any less than that, and the browser should reject the URL as invalid.
lol. that would have been awesome. domain squatters would be running for the 1000 character names while crying about all the money they paid for three letters one :)
lol. that would have been awesome. domain squatters would be running for the 1000 character names while crying about all the money they paid for three letters one :)
It's a lot more likely that the commenter remembering something he read 28(!) years later didn't rephrase it properly.
[deleted]
Originalism vs strict constructionism vs loose constructionism.
I've written a number of front-end projects that used URLs for state, and yes, lol, IE was a hard no for such efforts.
Didn't IE have buffer overflow attacks due both to long headers and long URLs?
Talk about being hoisted on your own petard...
Talk about being hoisted on your own petard...
I remember there was a site / tools that fit the whole web page content within its URL. And it was precisely limited by this "standard" where every browser behaves differently.
This is the kind of project we need more of. No politics, no perverse economic incentives. Just one human helping other humans utterly obliterate their address bar.
Unfortunately due to the way your service performs redirects(?), link previews give away the game. if I post a shadyurl.com link I get a link preview of the target website, but link previews for a(x56) show a preview for your website. Here's an example from a Messenger conversation where I used both services:
https://imgur.com/a/UPFGLug
https://imgur.com/a/UPFGLug
Mods complain about people making comments that are "obvious" but they don't complain about URL hiding services?
Here is an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27122041
Here is an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27122041
[deleted]
This is going in the toolbox along with http://shadyurl.com