On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:57 AM, siebrand@svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
Log Message:
Use a .org RFC2606 compliant example URL . . . -'extlink_sample' => 'http://www.example.com link title', +'extlink_sample' => 'http://www.example.org link title',
Is this meant to imply that example.com is not an RFC 2606-compliant example URL? Because it is. RFC 2606 reserves the three domain names example.com, example.net, and example.org, as well as the four top-level domain names .test, .example, .invalid, and .localhost.
No, it is not meant to replace a [.com] RFC2606 compliant example URL with a [.org] RFC2606 compliant example URL. This is what I meant to explain in the commit message. What was causing the unclarity exactly?
Cheers! Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Namens Simetrical Verzonden: vrijdag 11 juli 2008 18:22 Aan: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Onderwerp: Re: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN: [37552]trunk/phase3/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:57 AM, siebrand@svn.wikimedia.org wrote:
Log Message:
Use a .org RFC2606 compliant example URL . . . -'extlink_sample' => 'http://www.example.com link title', +'extlink_sample' => 'http://www.example.org link title',
Is this meant to imply that example.com is not an RFC 2606-compliant example URL? Because it is. RFC 2606 reserves the three domain names example.com, example.net, and example.org, as well as the four top-level domain names .test, .example, .invalid, and .localhost.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
No, it is not meant to replace a [.com] RFC2606 compliant example URL with a [.org] RFC2606 compliant example URL. This is what I meant to explain in the commit message. What was causing the unclarity exactly?
I interpreted the ".org RFC2606 compliant" modifier to be the reason you were committing the change, since I saw no other explanation of why you were doing it. I guess it's just because we like .org's more than .com's or something, which is fine, but the commit message didn't mention that.
Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
No, it is not meant to replace a [.com] RFC2606 compliant example URL with a [.org] RFC2606 compliant example URL. This is what I meant to explain in the commit message. What was causing the unclarity exactly?
It is an unusual change without any explanation of why the change was made, just a reference to RFC2606 compliance - which made an implication that the original URL was not RFC2606 compliant (which, of course, it is). What was your reason for making this change, out of curiosity?
MinuteElectron.
Like Simetrical said: we like .org better than .com, and as many 'example' domains pointed to pages showing ads, I thought I'd solve it. First in the English localisation, then in 100+ others.
Cheers! Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Namens MinuteElectron Verzonden: vrijdag 11 juli 2008 19:08 Aan: Wikimedia developers Onderwerp: Re: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:[37552]trunk/phase3/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php
Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
No, it is not meant to replace a [.com] RFC2606 compliant example URL with a [.org] RFC2606 compliant example URL. This is what I meant to explain in the commit message. What was causing the unclarity exactly?
It is an unusual change without any explanation of why the change was made, just a reference to RFC2606 compliance - which made an implication that the original URL was not RFC2606 compliant (which, of course, it is). What was your reason for making this change, out of curiosity?
MinuteElectron.
Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
Like Simetrical said: we like .org better than .com, and as many 'example' domains pointed to pages showing ads, I thought I'd solve it. First in the English localisation, then in 100+ others.
example.com and example.org both display this text only:
You have reached this web page by typing "example.com", "example.net", or "example.org" into your web browser.
These domain names are reserved for use in documentation and are not available for registration. See RFC 2606, Section 3.
There are no ads. It's good to fix up the other non-standard example URLs, but IMHO example.com is more widely used in documentation, and .com hostnames are more familiar to most users, so I'd rather stick with the example.com we've used for years than change it gratuitously.
I've replaced the changed URLs back to example.com.
-- brion
*sigh*
Please look a little further. I never claimed there were ads on example.[org|com|net]. There were ads on [some of|many of] the other URLs that were used as example URLs. These were normalised *and* example.com was changed to example.org - yes, because we like .org better than .com.
I couldn't care less about you reverting .org to .com, I would have cared if you reverted to all the 'spammy' URLs that made less sense.
Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Namens Brion Vibber Verzonden: zaterdag 12 juli 2008 16:32 Aan: Wikimedia developers Onderwerp: Re: [Wikitech-l][MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:[37552]trunk/phase3/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php
Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
Like Simetrical said: we like .org better than .com, and as many 'example' domains pointed to pages showing ads, I thought I'd solve it. First in the English localisation, then in 100+ others.
example.com and example.org both display this text only:
You have reached this web page by typing "example.com", "example.net", or "example.org" into your web browser.
These domain names are reserved for use in documentation and are not available for registration. See RFC 2606, Section 3.
There are no ads. It's good to fix up the other non-standard example URLs, but IMHO example.com is more widely used in documentation, and .com hostnames are more familiar to most users, so I'd rather stick with the example.com we've used for years than change it gratuitously.
I've replaced the changed URLs back to example.com.
-- brion
Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
*sigh*
Please look a little further. I never claimed there were ads on example.[org|com|net]. There were ads on [some of|many of] the other URLs that were used as example URLs. These were normalised *and* example.com was changed to example.org - yes, because we like .org better than .com.
I couldn't care less about you reverting .org to .com, I would have cared if you reverted to all the 'spammy' URLs that made less sense.
Siebrand
So that was it! Given that this thread started by r37552, which just changed example.com to exaple.org, it was hard to understand. Retroactively, it wopuld have been clearer if explained like "I changed all the extlink_sample (many of them full of ads) on r37553 to the RFC2606 compliant http://www.example.org I simply also changed the existing example.com addresses to .org as we favour .org over .com"
That would have avoided the example.com is also RFC2606 compliant! I now see you referred to this on "First in the English localisation, then in 100+ others." but giving revision numbers would have helped. I think the problem is that r37552 makes little sense. On the other hand, if given with the r37553 diffs, it can be easily understood that the motivation was changing the spammy urls.
Not making a critic of you, just philosophing about programmer diff comprehension :)
MinuteElectron wrote:
Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
No, it is not meant to replace a [.com] RFC2606 compliant example URL with a [.org] RFC2606 compliant example URL. This is what I meant to explain in the commit message. What was causing the unclarity exactly?
It is an unusual change without any explanation of why the change was made, just a reference to RFC2606 compliance - which made an implication that the original URL was not RFC2606 compliant (which, of course, it is).
Indeed, I've reverted it.
-- brion
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org