Warning: include(../_include/googleads.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /www/docs/stridebird.com/articles/_showarticle.php on line 52

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '../_include/googleads.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /www/docs/stridebird.com/articles/_showarticle.php on line 52

Published: 2005-08-22 12:09:32 [ previous | next | back to article list ]

To http:// or not?

Josh Russell wrote:
>is it just a curiosity or is there a time you can see when you will
>need to omit the http:// ? and why would you want to be doing that?
>

I am in favour of leaving it out. OK, it's outside the original thread which I think was trying to figure out which mail clients apply mark-up to links in plain text emails. Leaving it on probably works best there.

But in general, why quote it? And I would go further and leave out the "www" too. Although they both have totally logical reasons for inclusion in a URL, they simply aren't needed in the public, mainstrean use of the web. A name with a dot and a slash in it is enough to signal to anyone (ok it SHOULD be) that it's a web address. I like it because it's shorter, punchier, more memorable. It makes publication of a web address so much cleaner. And no more shuddering as someone painstakingly dictates a full URL over a mobile phone on a train. No more mouths full of Ws. I notice that many big web focused businesses and organisations are doing this now: itv.com springs to mind as one in many. Sure, technically, the longer form URL will still exist but its dirty techie mouthfuls should be hidden, buried in code and config files. DNS can handle "www" prefixes, and redirect to the shorter URL. Signwriting on vans and advertising boards gets simpler...

Surely less typing, less letters, less SPACE is a good thing?