Re: URL internationalization!

Larry wrote -

> As long as we're worrying about URL internationalization,
> can we do something about the "http://www." prefix too?
> If some users can only type in greek characters or kana/kanji,
> they will not be able to type in those 7 initial latin
> letters.
> 
> When I tell people that I worked on the URL standard, they
> usually complain to me about "http://www", especially about
> how hard it is to pronounce.

There are two separate issues here.  First, the scheme "http:".
I don't think anyone considered I18N issues or pronunciation
when defining the first set of scheme names (http, ftp, mailto,
etc.).  Maybe this should be a consideration for future schemes?
Maybe a mapping of the scheme name to the protocol is more
important.  Don't know.

The second issue is the, IMO, largely redundant "www".  While http
can be used for something other than the Web, common practice
is a one-to-one mapping of http and the Web.  Hence, if one has
already specified a scheme (and thus a protocol) of http, why does
one have to redundantly specify it again in the host name?

I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg, but I have
noticed that many advertisers simply list their Web site as
"www.company.com", omitting the "http://" (and the trailing slash).
It's much easier to remember and the "www" implies "http://".
Browsers picked up on this idea (or did they help start it?) by
allowing the omission of the "http://" portion.  One feeds on
the other.  (I have also seen host names of "ftp.company.com", etc.)

OK, where do we go from here.  Should we have a section in the
guideline document about redundant scheme naming in host names?
Should we just accept the fact that the popularity of the Web
has lead us to "http://www" as a form of common speech and leave
it at that?

Rich Petke ([email protected])