In message <t6ga79$p42$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:45:45 on Mon, 23 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Mon, 23 May 2022 14:36:34 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>What about when they're removed? What if I print
>>>something out - is the paper part of it too?
>>
>>Paper is not a documented URI protocol.
>
>Neither is SCSI but you seem to think anything on a disk is fair game.

Of course not.

>>>What you're essentially saying is that any data stored anywhere on any medium
>>>accessed in any way is part of the web making the term utterly meaningless.
>>
>>Only if referenced via a URI.
>
>Ah riiight. So if you put file:// in front of a filename its part of the web
>but if you don't it isn't. Okaaaay, got it!

"The syntax is similar to the ftp syntax, but in this case the slash
is used to donate boundaries between directory levels of a
hierarchical file system is used. The "client" software converts the
file URL into a file name in the local file name conventions. This
allows local files to be treated just as network objects without any
necessity to use a network server for access. This may be used for
example for defining a user's "home" document in WWW.

--
Roland Perry

On 24/05/2022 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t6hvv8$1o2i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:03:05 on Tue, 24 May
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 18:08:27 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t6ga1i$mag$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:42:42 on Mon, 23 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 13:19:23 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t6fjc9$1lsv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:15:53 on Mon, 23 May
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 16:32:52 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t65s80$hvg$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:45:52 on Thu, 19 May
>>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The real difference between modern Cloud based services and
>>>>>>>> remotely
>>>>>>>> provided services at some location other than where you are in
>>>>>>>> days gone
>>>>>>>> by, is that the latter were usually in one well known data
>>>>>>>> centre with
>>>>>>>> possibly a standby location. Customers of modern Cloud services
>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>> have no idea where the data centre is (you might know the legal
>>>>>>>> jurisdiction if required) and your data and workload can be
>>>>>>>> splattered
>>>>>>>> across multiple locations and even dynamically move location.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed so. And I have tired of repeating this self-evident truth to
>>>>>>> Muttley, because he's just not listening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you and all the other users always knew the physical location
>>>>>> of whatever
>>>
>>>>>> mapped drives you used in your corporate office did you?
>>>>>
>>>>> The receptionist probably didn't (nor would we expect them to).
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the more permanent users probably had some idea, and if
>>>>> necessary could ask. "It's the third server down, the second rack, in
>>>>> our suite in Telehouse".
>>>>
>>>> So if they didn't know it would be cloud but because some did it
>>>> wasn't.
>>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> If they didn't know, it might be because it was the server in the back
>>> room at the office, or the second server down in the third rack at
>>> Telecity.
>>>
>>> None of these answers imply it was therefore distributed within a cloud.
>>
>> You do realise distributed just means different computers?
>
> It's necessary, but not sufficient.
>
> Here's a formal definition picked with a pin:
>
>    Distributed computing (or distributed processing) is the technique of
>    linking together multiple computer servers over a network into a
>    cluster, to share data and to coordinate processing power.
>
> And such clusters are often colloquially referred to as a cloud.

“A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you
didn’t even know existed can render your own computer unusable”
- Leslie Lamport

In message <t6ga2l$mgm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:43:17 on Mon, 23 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>>>>>> FTP is not part of the web which is an HTTP service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've answered that in detail in a posting yesterday, but it certainly
>>>>>> clarifies the widespread confusion (which you share) that "The Web" is
>>>>>> only http.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is only http.
>>>>
>>>><cough> https </cough>

>>>Its HTTP over SSL. Everything else is the same.
>>
>>FTP is HTTP over SSL; or something else?
>
>HTTPS. Do try and keep up.

I'm happy to add https to http, to give a set of protocols which you
remain convinced are the only ones used across the WWW. Whereas in fact
there are numerous, including (infamously), ftp.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t6i09o$1scl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:08:40 on Tue, 24 May
>>What utter bullshit. You might as well say anything invented was waiting to
>>be discovered because it existed out there in the possibility of ideas.
>
>At no stage have I said that "anything invented" (aka 'everything
>invented') fits into this category. But plenty of them do. If the jet

No they don't.

>engine hadn't been invented when it was, do we think that planes would
>still be flying around with propellors?

Quite possibly. Humanity existed for half a million years before someone
invented the wheel. Just because an invention seems obvious to us doesn't
mean it is. The water jet could have been powered by steam engines. Why didn't
the victorians think it up? I'm sure there are thousands of other examples.

>had already been in the wild for six months) so it will have helped
>nudge adoption on a little, and in my opinion it wasn't the killer app.

The web wasn't much use if you didn't know where to look. Its why AOL and
other walled gardens remained popular for so long - because they were
curated.

>My wife's employers at the time used Notes, as a form of groupware, and
>like Usenet a big benefit was the "thread" of the earlier discussion, as
>well as the many-to-many aspects; you'll recall my remarks about
>Facebook having [both] these as well.

I've still got a pristine boxed copy of Notes 1.0 with original floppy disks.
Hoping it'll be worth something one day. Probably not.

On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:45:45 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2022 14:36:34 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>What about when they're removed? What if I print
>>>something out - is the paper part of it too?
>>
>>Paper is not a documented URI protocol.
>
>Neither is SCSI but you seem to think anything on a disk is fair game.
>
>>>What you're essentially saying is that any data stored anywhere on any medium
>>>accessed in any way is part of the web making the term utterly meaningless.
>>
>>Only if referenced via a URI.
>
>Ah riiight. So if you put file:// in front of a filename its part of the web
>but if you don't it isn't. Okaaaay, got it!

Spot on. A URI is what makes linked data part of the web.

As defined in the original WWW specification, a hyperlink has is in the
following format:

scheme : // host.domain:port / path / path # anchor

http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Addressing/Addressing.html

That document also gives examples of possible schemes. These are not
exhaustive, but do give an indication of what was considered, by its
early authors to be a part of the web. They include

file
news
http
telnet
gopher
wais

and, as it happens, the only fully referenced example on that page is a
file:// link

file://cernvax.cern.ch/usr/lib/WWW/defaut.html#123

The confusion between the web and HTTP[1] stems primarily from the fact
that HTTP was developed alongside HTML precisely because Tim Berners-Lee
and his colleagues recognised that existing protocols all had weaknesses
which made them less suitable for the web. And they were right; by the
time that the web made its way into general use rather than being
restricted to academic and research use HTTP was already dominant and
most non-technical users have never encountered any protocol other than
HTTP (except for, possibly, FTP, which was remained the preferred option
for file transfers for quite a while as it's more efficient than HTTP -
which matters when you have limited bandwidth - and supported resumption
of interrupted transfers much earlier than HTTP did).

However "less suitable for" doesn't mean "completely different to", and
the very early web was a mix of many protocols. "The web" is,
fundamentally, the URI syntax and the HTML markup language for embedding
URIs into documents. The fact that the only URIs in common use these
days are both HTTP schemes doesn't mean that those are the only ones
which can be used. Others have come and gone along the way - an early
version of streamed audio used the RTSP protocol, for example

rtsp://example.com/media.mp4

These days, that, too, is obsolete as HTTP itself supports streaming.
But there's no reason why someone may not, in future, come up with a new
protocol and a new URI scheme to go with it that runs alongside, or even
eventually replaces, HTTP. The whole point of the web is that it's
protocol independent. It will work with anything you run it over.

[1] HTTP, capitalised, refers to the protocol, and is the same thing
irrespective of whether it's encrypted or not or which port it uses. In
the URI structure, https is used to indicate an encrypted connection on
a default port of 443, but it's exactly the same command structure as
unencrypted connections on a default port of 80.

Mark

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100

>
> Just because an invention seems obvious to us doesn't
> mean it is. The water jet could have been powered by steam engines. Why didn't
> the victorians think it up?

They did

<https://rnli.org/about-us/our-history/timeline/1890-first-steam-driven-lifeboat>

<https://www.vintagedition.com/1890-steam-lifeboat-duke-of-northumberland-thorneycroft-chiswick-section-plan>

GH

On Tue, 24 May 2022 19:37:27 +0100
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:45:45 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 May 2022 14:36:34 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>What about when they're removed? What if I print
>>>>something out - is the paper part of it too?
>>>
>>>Paper is not a documented URI protocol.
>>
>>Neither is SCSI but you seem to think anything on a disk is fair game.
>>
>>>>What you're essentially saying is that any data stored anywhere on any
>medium
>>>>accessed in any way is part of the web making the term utterly meaningless.
>>>
>>>Only if referenced via a URI.
>>
>>Ah riiight. So if you put file:// in front of a filename its part of the web
>>but if you don't it isn't. Okaaaay, got it!
>
>Spot on. A URI is what makes linked data part of the web.

No it isn't. The web is a network based data access system that uses HTTP(S).

>As defined in the original WWW specification, a hyperlink has is in the
>following format:

So what? The web is not hyperlinks, those are client side. Apples hypertext
had hyperlinks but it wasn't part of the web.

>The confusion between the web and HTTP[1] stems primarily from the fact

There is no confusion.

tl;dr

On 24 May 2022 19:48:14 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>
>>
>> Just because an invention seems obvious to us doesn't
>> mean it is. The water jet could have been powered by steam engines. Why
>didn't
>> the victorians think it up?
>
>They did
>
><https://rnli.org/about-us/our-history/timeline/1890-first-steam-driven-lifeboa
>t>
>
><https://www.vintagedition.com/1890-steam-lifeboat-duke-of-northumberland-thorn
>eycroft-chiswick-section-plan>

Interesting. I wonder why it didn't catch on for decades? Reliability maybe or
ease of maintenance?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 24 May 2022 19:48:14 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>
>>>
>>> Just because an invention seems obvious to us doesn't
>>> mean it is. The water jet could have been powered by steam engines. Why
>> didn't
>>> the victorians think it up?
>>
>> They did
>>
>> <https://rnli.org/about-us/our-history/timeline/1890-first-steam-driven-lifeboa
>>>
>>
>> <https://www.vintagedition.com/1890-steam-lifeboat-duke-of-northumberland-thorn
>> eycroft-chiswick-section-plan>
>
> Interesting. I wonder why it didn't catch on for decades? Reliability maybe or
> ease of maintenance?
>
>

Probably that.
For the lifeboats of the time where there was a likelihood of of working in
shallow water or hauled up a beach not having an external screw to damage
or get caught may have been a consideration that made the complication
worthwhile.
It would also alleviate the danger of injuring a casualty in the water by a
propeller blade cutting in to them though whether that was a consideration
the Victorians undertook I don’t know.
Its a consideration drummed into those who operate Rescue craft and those
used for such purposes should have a shrouded prop anyway, but accidents
have occurred by well meaning people dashing up in an unsuitable craft and
forgetting a floating person has legs.

GH

In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t6i09o$1scl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:08:40 on Tue, 24 May
>>>What utter bullshit. You might as well say anything invented was waiting to
>>>be discovered because it existed out there in the possibility of ideas.
>>
>>At no stage have I said that "anything invented" (aka 'everything
>>invented') fits into this category. But plenty of them do. If the jet
>
>No they don't.

Many inventions have a dubious pedigree. Television for example, is
often credited to Logie-Baird, but that was an impractical mechanical
system and others were already working on the precursor to what we have
today. Someone, somewhere, was going to implement it sooner or later
(maybe it was "invented" by The Brothers Grimm, but then they were only
chronicling an existing fable).

>>engine hadn't been invented when it was, do we think that planes would
>>still be flying around with propellors?
>
>Quite possibly. Humanity existed for half a million years before someone
>invented the wheel. Just because an invention seems obvious to us doesn't
>mean it is. The water jet could have been powered by steam engines. Why didn't
>the victorians think it up? I'm sure there are thousands of other examples.
>
>>had already been in the wild for six months) so it will have helped
>>nudge adoption on a little, and in my opinion it wasn't the killer app.
>
>The web wasn't much use if you didn't know where to look. Its why AOL and
>other walled gardens remained popular for so long - because they were
>curated.

There were curated sites on the Internet too, not just Yahoo, from Q2
1995. But you found out about most things because they were promoted by
their proprietors. Such as The Electronic Telegraph which launched in
November 1994, and contemporary reporting claimed it was one of 10,000
websites available for the public to browse (because that seemed like a
large number compared to the half a dozen services like CompuServe and
AOL).

Newspapers such as the Guardian carried columns, curated by the likes of
Jack Schofield, which did the equivalent of film-reviews for a dozen or
so websites a week. Not always welcome, because it tended to swamp their
bandwidth capacity.

Or with a bit [actually, a lot] of effort you could get your website a
double page spread in the Sunday Times lifestyle section. Our website
had an online agony aunt, and got covered in Woman's Hour (a popular
daytime wireless show m'lud) in September 1995. For those already
interested in home IT, there were also website reviews in publications
such as PC Plus.

Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet, with in
effect crowd-sourced search capability.

bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is probably
still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash gnash> every
minute of every day.

>>My wife's employers at the time used Notes, as a form of groupware, and
>>like Usenet a big benefit was the "thread" of the earlier discussion, as
>>well as the many-to-many aspects; you'll recall my remarks about
>>Facebook having [both] these as well.
>
>I've still got a pristine boxed copy of Notes 1.0 with original floppy disks.
>Hoping it'll be worth something one day. Probably not.

It'd probably be worth more if it was a product still vaguely in use (eg
a boxed copy of Windows 1.0). If you wanted to know what yours was
worth, I could point you at a forum on Facebook, but you've already
turned your nose up at that curated platform.
--
Roland Perry

On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet, with in
> effect crowd-sourced search capability.
>
> bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is probably
> still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash gnash> every
> minute of every day.

So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point to an
example?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:23:36 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t6i09o$1scl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:08:40 on Tue, 24 May
>>>>What utter bullshit. You might as well say anything invented was waiting to
>>>>be discovered because it existed out there in the possibility of ideas.
>>>
>>>At no stage have I said that "anything invented" (aka 'everything
>>>invented') fits into this category. But plenty of them do. If the jet
>>
>>No they don't.
>
>Many inventions have a dubious pedigree. Television for example, is

Buy your definitions television would include the people on it rather than
the technology itself.

>>I've still got a pristine boxed copy of Notes 1.0 with original floppy disks.
>>Hoping it'll be worth something one day. Probably not.
>
>It'd probably be worth more if it was a product still vaguely in use (eg
>a boxed copy of Windows 1.0). If you wanted to know what yours was
>worth, I could point you at a forum on Facebook, but you've already
>turned your nose up at that curated platform.

Not bothered right now. Most historic computer related items are still worth
buttons these days. It'll probably be long after we're all dead before they
start to accrue real value sometime towards the end of this century I imagine.

In message <t6lb65$rcg$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:53 on Wed, 25 May
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>> Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet,
>>with in effect crowd-sourced search capability.

>> bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is
>>probably still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash
>>gnash> every minute of every day.
>
>So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point to
>an example?

It's what the presenters habitually said, although nowadays can get lost
in a laundry list of Twitter and other contact channels.
--
Roland Perry

On 25/05/2022 16:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t6lb65$rcg$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:53 on Wed, 25 May
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>  Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet,
>>> with in  effect crowd-sourced search capability.
>
>>>  bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is
>>> probably  still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash
>>> gnash> every  minute of every day.
>>
>> So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point to
>> an example?
>
> It's what the presenters habitually said, although nowadays can get lost
> in a laundry list of Twitter and other contact channels.

So you can't point to an example. FAOD your original claim was the BBC
website said that. As you can't back up that statement, you've enlisted
your galloping goalposts to claim that unspecified presenters say it. Do
make up your mind.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t6lfa2$mko$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:43:15 on Wed, 25 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:23:36 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t6i09o$1scl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:08:40 on Tue, 24 May
>>>>>What utter bullshit. You might as well say anything invented was waiting to
>>>>>be discovered because it existed out there in the possibility of ideas.
>>>>
>>>>At no stage have I said that "anything invented" (aka 'everything
>>>>invented') fits into this category. But plenty of them do. If the jet
>>>
>>>No they don't.
>>
>>Many inventions have a dubious pedigree. Television for example, is
>
>Buy your definitions television would include the people on it rather than
>the technology itself.

If you mean URLs, then it's true that many television programmes have
those, for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001830q which is
the somewhat search-engine-unfriendly one for Panorama.

I'm not claiming anyone invented Panaorama, or indeed Partygate.

>>>I've still got a pristine boxed copy of Notes 1.0 with original floppy disks.
>>>Hoping it'll be worth something one day. Probably not.
>>
>>It'd probably be worth more if it was a product still vaguely in use (eg
>>a boxed copy of Windows 1.0). If you wanted to know what yours was
>>worth, I could point you at a forum on Facebook, but you've already
>>turned your nose up at that curated platform.
>
>Not bothered right now. Most historic computer related items are still worth
>buttons these days. It'll probably be long after we're all dead before they
>start to accrue real value sometime towards the end of this century I imagine.

Disallowing outliers like the Apple-I which sold for half a million
recently, it's not unknown for early examples of other personal
computers to sell for a few thousand, although that's still less than
they were new (even taking inflation into account). Business software
less so; but like most collectibles, rare games software is where people
will pay more than "buttons" to get that final one in their series.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t6licn$j4f$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:51 on Wed, 25 May
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 25/05/2022 16:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t6lb65$rcg$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:53 on Wed, 25 May
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24
>>>>May 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>  Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet,
>>>>with in  effect crowd-sourced search capability.
>>
>>>> bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is
>>>> probably still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash
>>>> gnash> every minute of every day.
>>>
>>> So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point
>>>to an example?

>> It's what the presenters habitually said, although nowadays can get
>>lost in a laundry list of Twitter and other contact channels.
>
>So you can't point to an example. FAOD your original claim was the BBC
>website said that. As you can't back up that statement, you've enlisted
>your galloping goalposts to claim that unspecified presenters say it.
>Do make up your mind.

A bit pedantic there. I suppose we'd need to find a transcript (or a
recording) of a programme, and I can't be bothered right now to dig
through the way the archives have moved from individual programme sites,
via iPlayer to BBC Sounds.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t6licn$j4f$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:51 on Wed, 25 May
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 25/05/2022 16:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t6lb65$rcg$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:53 on Wed, 25 May
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24
>>>>> May 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>  Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet,
>>>>> with in  effect crowd-sourced search capability.
>>>
>>>>> bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is
>>>>> probably still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash
>>>>> gnash> every minute of every day.
>>>>
>>>> So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point
>>>> to an example?
>
>>> It's what the presenters habitually said, although nowadays can get
>>> lost in a laundry list of Twitter and other contact channels.
>>
>> So you can't point to an example. FAOD your original claim was the BBC
>> website said that. As you can't back up that statement, you've enlisted
>> your galloping goalposts to claim that unspecified presenters say it.
>> Do make up your mind.
>
> A bit pedantic there. I suppose we'd need to find a transcript (or a
> recording) of a programme, and I can't be bothered right now to dig
> through the way the archives have moved from individual programme sites,
> via iPlayer to BBC Sounds.

In any case, I'm not sure what your objection is to the remark? It's
perfectly reasonable to invite viewers/listeners to click on an 'email us'
link on the programme's web page.

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:23:36 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24 May
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t6i09o$1scl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:08:40 on Tue, 24 May
>>>>What utter bullshit. You might as well say anything invented was waiting to
>>>>be discovered because it existed out there in the possibility of ideas.
>>>
>>>At no stage have I said that "anything invented" (aka 'everything
>>>invented') fits into this category. But plenty of them do. If the jet
>>
>>No they don't.
>
>Many inventions have a dubious pedigree. Television for example, is
>often credited to Logie-Baird, but that was an impractical mechanical
>system and others were already working on the precursor to what we have
>today. Someone, somewhere, was going to implement it sooner or later
>(maybe it was "invented" by The Brothers Grimm, but then they were only
>chronicling an existing fable).
>
With television, the problem seems to be the common attribution of the
whole thing to one of various persons rather than the more specific
components or processes involved. Baird was the first with a working
system and the first with colour but Farnsworth was the first to do it
electronically. OTOH, the CRT had already been invented in the 19th
century but without being used in the context of television.
<snip>

On 25/05/2022 17:24, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t6licn$j4f$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:51 on Wed, 25 May
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 25/05/2022 16:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t6lb65$rcg$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:53 on Wed, 25 May
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24
>>>>> May  2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>  Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet,
>>>>> with in  effect crowd-sourced search capability.
>>>
> >>>> bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is
> >>>> probably still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash
> >>>> gnash> every minute of every day.
>>>>
>>>> So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point
>>>> to  an example?
>
>>>  It's what the presenters habitually said, although nowadays can get
>>> lost  in a laundry list of Twitter and other contact channels.
>>
>> So you can't point to an example. FAOD your original claim was the BBC
>> website said that. As you can't back up that statement, you've
>> enlisted your galloping goalposts to claim that unspecified presenters
>> say it. Do make up your mind.
>
> A bit pedantic there.

ROTFL

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t6lm2g$enj$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:38:40 on Wed, 25 May
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t6licn$j4f$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:51 on Wed, 25 May
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 25/05/2022 16:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t6lb65$rcg$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:53 on Wed, 25 May
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 25/05/2022 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t6ivtc$11q5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:08:12 on Tue, 24
>>>>>> May 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>  Alternatively, old-school users could read about them on Usenet,
>>>>>> with in  effect crowd-sourced search capability.
>>>>
>>>>>> bbc.co.uk was a bit late to the party, in December 1997, and is
>>>>>> probably still inviting people to "email us at our website" <gnash
>>>>>> gnash> every minute of every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you keep claiming, can't say I've ever seen it. Could you point
>>>>> to an example?
>>
>>>> It's what the presenters habitually said, although nowadays can get
>>>> lost in a laundry list of Twitter and other contact channels.
>>>
>>> So you can't point to an example. FAOD your original claim was the BBC
>>> website said that. As you can't back up that statement, you've enlisted
>>> your galloping goalposts to claim that unspecified presenters say it.
>>> Do make up your mind.
>>
>> A bit pedantic there. I suppose we'd need to find a transcript (or a
>> recording) of a programme, and I can't be bothered right now to dig
>> through the way the archives have moved from individual programme sites,
>> via iPlayer to BBC Sounds.
>
>In any case, I'm not sure what your objection is to the remark? It's
>perfectly reasonable to invite viewers/listeners to click on an 'email us'
>link on the programme's web page.

Yes, I think the idea was that every programme had its own little
webmail client embedded. Separately, things like that are clumsy, almost
never give the sender a copy for reference, (and "conveniently" can
avoid asking for a reply-to address) wheras a proper send-to email
address (which I see is now coming into fashion at the BBC, so someone
there is thinking like I do) is preferable.

As with my issue of the use of "dodgy lines" (Monday it was "sorry about
the quality of the line" when they were interviewing a spokesperson
about press day at the Chelsea Flower Show), I happen to think - and
they are now thankfully heading that way - "Contact Us" is a better use
of language than "email us", because the latter does to some extent
imply using an email client.

Wouldn't it feel a bit odd if they said "send us a Tweet at our
website", with an embedded Twitter widget there (such things did exist
at one time), rather than you using your regular Twitter app?
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:29:42 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Tue, 24 May 2022 19:37:27 +0100
>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:45:45 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 May 2022 14:36:34 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>What about when they're removed? What if I print
>>>>>something out - is the paper part of it too?
>>>>
>>>>Paper is not a documented URI protocol.
>>>
>>>Neither is SCSI but you seem to think anything on a disk is fair game.
>>>
>>>>>What you're essentially saying is that any data stored anywhere on any
>>medium
>>>>>accessed in any way is part of the web making the term utterly meaningless.
>>>>
>>>>Only if referenced via a URI.
>>>
>>>Ah riiight. So if you put file:// in front of a filename its part of the web
>>>but if you don't it isn't. Okaaaay, got it!
>>
>>Spot on. A URI is what makes linked data part of the web.
>
>No it isn't. The web is a network based data access system that uses HTTP(S).

No, it isn't, as those of us who have actually worked in this arena are
trying to tell you.

Obviously, I cannot force you to accept my credentials in this respect,
and you're perfectly at liberty to believe what you want about the
nature of the wweb, particularly as your opinion isn't going to make any
difference at all to how you or anyone else uses it. You can believe
that driving a train is the same as driving a bus, too, if you want to,
and that isn't going to stop the trains running. Your imperfect
knowledge isn't going to stop the world going round. But other people
may find the explanation interesting and informative.

>>The confusion between the web and HTTP[1] stems primarily from the fact
>
>There is no confusion.
>
>tl;dr

If a relatively short explanation is too long for you to read, then
that's probably why your knowledge remains so limited.

Mark

In message <8nmu8hpj2f7nv1js2784jbm3vunt2k6he4@4ax.com>, at 11:57:18 on
Thu, 26 May 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>>Ah riiight. So if you put file:// in front of a filename its part of the web
>>>>but if you don't it isn't. Okaaaay, got it!
>>>
>>>Spot on. A URI is what makes linked data part of the web.
>>
>>No it isn't. The web is a network based data access system that uses HTTP(S).
>
>No, it isn't, as those of us who have actually worked in this arena are
>trying to tell you.

I got a new URI offered to me today, not sure if it's official:

edge://settings/defaultbrowser

Which appears to be some industrial strength papering over the cracks of
incompatibilities between Internet Explorer, Edge, and websites which
may or may not regard it as important to pander to the idiosyncrasies of
either.

My intuition is to avoid being sucked into ever more proprietary
Microsoft-ish territory.

In other news, I've met and chatted with Tim B-L and he seems to me to
be very much from the old school of "We didn't write those RFCs because
we had nothing better to do - ignore them at your peril".
--
Roland Perry

In message <t6ivht$6do$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:05 on Tue, 24 May
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:

>A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you
>didn’t even know existed can render your own computer unusable
>- Leslie Lamport

I had that back in 1995 when trying to demonstrate Internet access to an
important client, was scuppered because of something akin to "the
janitor unplugged the specified DNS server, to provide a power socket
for their vacuum cleaner".

Up until then I was unaware the DNS serve was being hosted other than in
our machine room, and still don't understand why it was thought to be OK
somewhere else in the building.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 26 May 2022 15:07:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <8nmu8hpj2f7nv1js2784jbm3vunt2k6he4@4ax.com>, at 11:57:18 on
>Thu, 26 May 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>>Ah riiight. So if you put file:// in front of a filename its part of the web
>>>>>but if you don't it isn't. Okaaaay, got it!
>>>>
>>>>Spot on. A URI is what makes linked data part of the web.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. The web is a network based data access system that uses HTTP(S).
>>
>>No, it isn't, as those of us who have actually worked in this arena are
>>trying to tell you.
>
>I got a new URI offered to me today, not sure if it's official:
>
> edge://settings/defaultbrowser

Chrome uses the same structure for its settings. For example:

chrome://bookmarks/

chrome://settings/privacy

chrome://settings/defaultBrowser

as does Opera:

opera://settings/cookies

opera://settings/defaultBrowser

I don't think it's intended to be treated as a web URI. It just uses the
same structure for convenience. Firefox also puts the internal path into
the URL box, but uses a different structure:

about:preferences#general

The interesting thing about Chromium based browsers, though (ie, Chrome,
Edge and Opera) is that if a web page runs a script to detect the
browser, it could then offer links to change your settings with only the
browser itself being different.

<a href="<?=browser;?>://settings/cookies">Click here to change your
cookie settings</a>

Mark

On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:57:18 +0100
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 May 2022 09:29:42 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>No it isn't. The web is a network based data access system that uses HTTP(S).
>
>No, it isn't, as those of us who have actually worked in this arena are
>trying to tell you.

What does worked in this area mean? You once configured an apache server?

>Obviously, I cannot force you to accept my credentials in this respect,

You haven't given any.

>and you're perfectly at liberty to believe what you want about the
>nature of the wweb, particularly as your opinion isn't going to make any
>difference at all to how you or anyone else uses it. You can believe
>that driving a train is the same as driving a bus, too, if you want to,
>and that isn't going to stop the trains running. Your imperfect
>knowledge isn't going to stop the world going round. But other people
>may find the explanation interesting and informative.

I've never yet met anyone who thought the web was anything other than a network
bound together by HTTP. But what do I know, I'm only a developer, not a wise
sage who clearly talks to people who have other ideas.