[Torrent] ∪ QUALITY TORRENTS ∪ [DQN] (22)

1 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8731 03:59

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:abac45ddab754409d67e99fa661db98d31cbfa70

2 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8731 19:28

Great thread. Excellent post. Would read again. URIs are my favorite short-form genre.

3 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8732 05:38

Can we get a tracker or ten for that? Whatever it is, 24 hours of peer exchange hasn't turned up anyone in my peer cloud of '80s mecha enthusiasts who happens to have the torrent file.

4 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8732 06:13

I wonder why every net protocol you see linked does the stupid web browser // thing but magnet

anyway, here is a certified [DQN] quality torrent [EHT PERSONALIZED TORRENT - DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE] https://ehtracker.org/get/1045523/80b70fc90825533cba01e9ad6d803ba3395f74ba.torrent

5 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8732 08:14

>>4
The earliest piece of evidence I can find that references protocols other than http: and uses "//" is RFC 1738. They say

>The scheme specific data start with a double slash "//" to indicate
>that it complies with the common Internet scheme syntax.

by which they appear to mean "The WWW is really hot right now, so we're just going to copy Berners-Lee's URLs".

Also, http://magnet-uri.sourceforge.net/magnet-draft-overview.txt says

>FYI, EDonkey URIs violate many provisos of RFCs 1738 and
>2396, including the use of "//" at the front of a non-
>hierarchical namespace and the use of illegal/disfavored
>(when not escaped) characters

It's a bit of a jump from "common Internet scheme syntax" to "hierarchical namespace", but it sort of makes sense.

As to the torrent, thank you. I am now assured of its DQN quality.

6 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8733 19:12

The reason for the leading // is disambiguation between relative and absolute URLs when hyperlinking within a hierarchical protocol, for example. Since magnet is not hierarchical, it does not require a leading //. Common, non-hierarchical "Internet schemes" include mailto, data, and sip.

7 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 04:06

>>6
I don't follow. Suppose that the format for http links just dropped the // completely. What's an example of an formerly unambiguous URL which would be ambiguated by this change?

8 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 05:04

>>7
Most browsers today even detect and hide/correct this because it should not be your job as the end user to unfuck the protocol end of URLs when you are implicitly only much interested in HTTP.

Nonetheless, a lot of the Internet runs on pure inertia and ad-hoc trying shit out. That many Internet "standards" are technically just IETF RFCs is not a mistake. "Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was...."

9 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 06:08

>>7
Nothing, the leading // are the one thing that the W3C's supreme leader has publicly come out as regretting the most.
None of it really matters, the web standard is complete garbage that was aptly compared to drowning in a sea of pufferfish that are pregnant with freddy krugar.

10 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 06:27

>>8,9
Okay, I just thought >>6 meant "disambiguation" in a technical sense and was confused.

11 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 19:53

>>7-10
It definitely is disambiguation in a purely technical sense.
Consider a hyperlink residing on the page http://4-ch.net/dqn/foo.html. The following hrefs will all direct your browser to the neighbouring file bar.html:

  1. http://4-ch.net/dqn/bar.html
  2. //4-ch.net/dqn/bar.html
  3. /dqn/bar.html
  4. bar.html

If // were not mandated to be at the beginning of an absolute URL, cases 1 and 3 are still unambiguous but cases 2 and 4 are hosed. Your browser would have to decide whether or not to visit these pages instead:
2. http://4-ch.net/dqn/4-ch.net/dqn/bar.html
4. http://bar.html

This is why the // is necessary. Not because TBL has a cult of personality.

I hope >>8 and >>9 are ashamed of themselves for attempting to discredit a set of incredibly well thought out communication standards made by a number of incredibly clever people on the basis of a pair of forward slashes. Yes, a lot of the Internet runs on ad-hoc trying shit out, but 99% of this ad-hoc mess is due to people not following standards. (Microsoft, PHP developers of the 90s, Chrome-using web developers of the present, I'm looking at you.)

12 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 21:01

>>11
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that a relativeURL (in the sense of RFC 1808) could point to a different net location.

13 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 22:17

>>11
It's not just Chrome, all the major web browsers have implemented their own subset of the standard that isn't in compliance with the whole spec or each other. The issue of browser specific content like activex and all of the "Best viewed from Netscape 3+" pages from the 90's never was unified, it just fails silently now or there's a huge mess of javascript errors because just using more of that cancer of a language is apparently a patch for the standards being bad and poorly implemented. The relatively good standards that are out there excel because they are simple ubiquitous, you pipe from a to b and you can see how and why it's doing that and it's not checking for and doing 30 different things to finish the job, "comprehensive" is a bad word and all that cleverness that led to HTTP/2.0 or even 1.1 seems to have been wasted adding more specific cases than cutting the fat and letting those be implemented with broader strokes. The original Xanadu Hypertext design document was overcomplicated but at least the end user's view of it was something impressive, the current W3C hypertext doc is voynichian and what it accomplishes is mundane, and the IETF's transfer protocol for it accomplishes little for great undue complexity.

14 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8734 22:19

>>11
>>8 here. You have delineated some technical considerations quite clearly, but I will not stand here and take that. I answered the question on the emotional level it was asked.

Re-read my statement very carefully, but this time with the understanding that it is a rather high praise of making systems that aren't broken and are hard to break. Never so often does man's hand truly touch things in a manner that it might be mistaken for a work of God, yet here we are.

15 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8735 00:03

~5G of OSTs from early type-moon stuff.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1a1ac8dee440899aa26e1af2ee38b2ba375aa0c2&dn=TYPE-MOON%20Sound%20Collection&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fexplodie.org%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337&tr=http%3a%2f%2fopen.nyaatorrents.info%3a6544%2fannounce&tr=http%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com0%2fannounce&tr=http%3a%2f%2ftracker.datorrents.com%3a6969%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fzer0day.ch%3a1337

16 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8735 10:39

>>13
Somewhere around the start of the 2010s things were looking up with regards to getting out of the browser-specific hellhole, and then everyone who turned to Chrome when it was superior (it is now more RAM-hungry than other browsers, but of course nobody will listen to such blasphemy) decided that no other browser was worth testing their work on, especially when it came to extended functionality that they didn't realise (or care) was Chrome-specific. We're back where we were when IE6 was still worth worrying about.

As usual on the Internet, the smallest comments garner the lengthiest responses.

>>14
You are most correct; I apologise for misinterpreting your post.

With that out of the way, how about some more torrents?

17 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8736 07:36

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:50de0c6a117b3e31ee04316679b88ed513de2d76

Here's the tracker for the OP and this torrent: http://bt1.archive.org:6969/announce

18 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8737 04:21

>>17

             / ) / ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄
            ./ / | Thank you...
           / /  \          / ̄ ̄ ̄
           / /     ̄|/ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄|  for the torrent!
         ./ /_Λ     , -つ     \
         / / ´Д`)  ./__ノ        ̄∨ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄
        /    \ / /   ⊂_ヽ、
        .|    へ/ /      .\\ Λ_Λ
        |    レ'  /、二つ       \ ( ´Д`)
        |     /.          . >  ⌒ヽ
       /   /             /    へ \
       /  /               /    /   \\
      /  /               レ  ノ     ヽ_つ
     / ノ               /  /
   _/ /                /  /|
  ノ /                 ( ( 、
⊂ -'                    |  |、 \
                     .  | / \ ⌒l
                       | |   ) /
                      ノ  )   し'
                     (_/

19 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8737 08:19

>>17

>http:
>:6969

??????????

20 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8737 15:19

>>19
On your torrent client it should say "edit trackers" or something similar when you've selected one. Add it that way. The 6969 is just the port, lots of trackers use numbers like that or 1337

21 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8737 22:38

I was just joking. http typically goes through port 80, as you probably know, >>20

22 Name: (*゚ー゚) : 1993-09-8738 18:58

>>21
This is an incredible very serious matter, as you can see, so please take it very seriosly
Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: