www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Use https: for wikipedia links

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
I just did this PR for the web site:

     https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/1166

The next step is to similarly adjust all the wikipedia links in the Phobos 
documentation. Most are one of the forms:

     $(LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adler-32)
     $(LINK2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode, Wikipedia)
     $(WEB en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day, Julian day)

To fix it, I suggest a new macro be created, WEBS, that does https:// and then 
all the wikipedia links be replaced with WEBS links.


As a general rule, all links in the documentation should be tested to see if 
they support https://, and if so, modified to use it.

Who is up for doing this?
Dec 13 2015
next sibling parent reply Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 01:57:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 To fix it, I suggest a new macro be created, WEBS, that does 
 https:// and then all the wikipedia links be replaced with WEBS 
 links.


I think we should aim to get rid of the WEB macro, as it adds 
little (its only benefit is saving the 7 characters "http://"), 
but causes links to not be clickable in IDEs/terminals which 
support URL highlighting/navigation.
Dec 13 2015
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/13/2015 6:49 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 01:57:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 To fix it, I suggest a new macro be created, WEBS, that does https:// and then
 all the wikipedia links be replaced with WEBS links.


 I think we should aim to get rid of the WEB macro, as it adds little (its only
 benefit is saving the 7 characters "http://"), but causes links to not be
 clickable in IDEs/terminals which support URL highlighting/navigation.


Sounds good to me.
Dec 13 2015
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/13/2015 09:49 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 01:57:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 To fix it, I suggest a new macro be created, WEBS, that does https://
 and then all the wikipedia links be replaced with WEBS links.


 I think we should aim to get rid of the WEB macro, as it adds little
 (its only benefit is saving the 7 characters "http://"), but causes
 links to not be clickable in IDEs/terminals which support URL
 highlighting/navigation.


One reason for adding WEB is that the ":" confuses ddoc when "http:" is 
the first word on a line. Also, typing it is rather clumsy. I'd be 
bummed if WEB went away. -- Andrei
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 13:47:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 One reason for adding WEB is that the ":" confuses ddoc when 
 "http:" is the first word on a line.


Can we fix Ddoc to require a space/newline after the : to 
consider the preceding text a section heading?


 Also, typing it is rather clumsy.


I would argue that links should be pasted from a browser's 
address bar, not typed by hand :) That way you know you're 
pasting a working link.
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/14/2015 10:31 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 13:47:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 One reason for adding WEB is that the ":" confuses ddoc when "http:"
 is the first word on a line.


 Can we fix Ddoc to require a space/newline after the : to consider the
 preceding text a section heading?


I think keeping WEB would be effective as well.


 Also, typing it is rather clumsy.


 I would argue that links should be pasted from a browser's address bar,
 not typed by hand :) That way you know you're pasting a working link.


I wrote a lot of that documentation, and I like WEB. One of the good 
things it does is it helps long links, which normally would wrap (in 
emacs etc) to the next line, to the be misinterpreted by ddoc.

At this point, we're heading into "we're wasting time on this" territory 
and proceed straight to the well known pattern when every little 
argument is fought for and against like someone's life depended on it. 
Can we not do that for a change - do as you wish but please let others 
be as well.


Andrei
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 17:08:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 At this point, we're heading into "we're wasting time on this" 
 territory and proceed straight to the well known pattern when 
 every little argument is fought for and against like someone's 
 life depended on it. Can we not do that for a change - do as 
 you wish but please let others be as well.


I really wish you would stop saying this every time we discuss 
something minor. You seem to use this every time any minor 
argument doesn't go in the direction you want, and I'm tired of 
hearing it. I don't know where you get the "like someone's life 
depended on it" part - this and previous times, I was idly musing 
about fixing a minor nuisance, not arguing for my life. If you 
think that something is not worth your attention, you can also 
choose to not reply.
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 19:40:56 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:

 On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 17:08:46 UTC, Andrei 
 Alexandrescu wrote:

 At this point, we're heading into "we're wasting time on this" 
 territory and proceed straight to the well known pattern when 
 every little argument is fought for and against like someone's 
 life depended on it. Can we not do that for a change - do as 
 you wish but please let others be as well.


 I really wish you would stop saying this every time we discuss 
 something minor. You seem to use this every time any minor 
 argument doesn't go in the direction you want, and I'm tired of 
 hearing it. I don't know where you get the "like someone's life 
 depended on it" part - this and previous times, I was idly 
 musing about fixing a minor nuisance, not arguing for my life. 
 If you think that something is not worth your attention, you 
 can also choose to not reply.


I agree that discussing matters can be helpful and productive, 
but we sometimes seem to do too much of it and we latch into a 
counterproductive pattern. In this case I could have said 
nothing, but we were again contemplating one of those diffs that 
touch dozens of files to accomplish something not even better. 
This I need to actively stand against.

As an aside: Wikipedia (and other sites) automatically redirect 
to https. What advantages do we have by using https directly? I'm 
sure there's some, but my web-fu could use some guidance. Thanks!


Andrei
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/14/2015 12:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 As an aside: Wikipedia (and other sites) automatically redirect to https. What
 advantages do we have by using https directly? I'm sure there's some, but my
 web-fu could use some guidance. Thanks!


I see it does the redirect, and wonder as well if there's an advantage to 
calling https directly.
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 21:35:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 I see it does the redirect, and wonder as well if there's an 
 advantage to calling https directly.


The end user saves a small amount of time by skipping the 
redirect.

If it is trivial, I'd do it for the snappier load, but I wouldn't 
spend time actually worrying about it. (Besides, the load time of 
external sites isn't really our problem.)
Dec 14 2015
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/14/2015 1:43 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 21:35:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 I see it does the redirect, and wonder as well if there's an advantage to
 calling https directly.


 The end user saves a small amount of time by skipping the redirect.

 If it is trivial, I'd do it for the snappier load, but I wouldn't spend time
 actually worrying about it. (Besides, the load time of external sites isn't
 really our problem.)


Another advantage is that we'll know which sites support https:. I did some 
experimenting and was surprised at how few news sites support it, for example.
Dec 14 2015
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 21:56:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Another advantage is that we'll know which sites support 
 https:. I did some experimenting and was surprised at how few 
 news sites support it, for example.


https makes it impossible to use shared local caches (proxy), 
there is extra processing costs and if you embed content from 
other providers they might not provide https (which results in 
ugly warnings in browsers).
Dec 15 2015
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On the other hand there's a move to make encrypted protocol the 
default and leave unencrypted as legacy, so maybe WEB macro 
should be silently upgraded to https? Full links look better and 
more intuitive IMO.
Dec 14 2015
next sibling parent wobbles <grogan.colin gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 14:53:20 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 On the other hand there's a move to make encrypted protocol the 
 default and leave unencrypted as legacy, so maybe WEB macro 
 should be silently upgraded to https? Full links look better 
 and more intuitive IMO.


I think this would be the most logical step. Replace current WEB 
with https://, and create another macro (maybe WEBL - Web Legacy) 
for the current http:// links.
Dec 14 2015
prev sibling parent reply Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:53:20 +0000, Kagamin wrote:


 On the other hand there's a move to make encrypted protocol the default
 and leave unencrypted as legacy, so maybe WEB macro should be silently
 upgraded to https? Full links look better and more intuitive IMO.


Do you want to mandate that any link from Phobos documentation be to a 
site that supports SSL?
Dec 14 2015
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Monday, 14 December 2015 at 20:42:54 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:

 Do you want to mandate that any link from Phobos documentation 
 be to a site that supports SSL?


LINK2 supports full URLs with arbitrary schemes.
Dec 14 2015