Slashdot Mirror
UrlHosted Experiment: Host Content Within the URL
New submitter graphicore writes to point out an experimental "unhosted" app that challenges the concept of the URL. By putting the post data after the # mark, the URL is (mis-)used as the data storage. You can store your data within your bookmarks list, host it via a URL-shortener(!) like here: http://goo.gl/DYxr5m or attach it directly to a tweet
I also attached the full-url to this slashdot post :-) This raises the question about who is hosting the content and it will probably break the internet.
This is a quote from Google's shortener policy: "Please remember that goo.gl directs you to content that is already in existence on the internet. This is not content hosted by Google." It could also become a storage strategy for any other web app. The app is GPL v3, no strings attached.
And there's always DNS, too.
Not sure if serious, but I'll bite. The default action for URLs ending in #~~~~ is for the browser to find a tag named ~~~~ and scroll to that. It's used to link to a specific part of the page. Originally the tag needed to be an <a name="~~~~"> tag, but modern browsers will find any tag with id="~~~~" and use that.
It's used here because the browser does not send the #~~~~ part of the URL to the server, so you're not limited by the URL length limits in certain browsers*cough*IE*cough*. Instead, the webpage includes javascript that reads the window location variable to find the #~~~~ and parse it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Yes and no. You could fit a bittorrent tracker into it. Then you're hosting your bit torrent tracker files into a short URL.
It doesn't break the internet but it does dramatically shift the question of who is "Hosting" content and who is "just sharing a link". There is a lot of legal uncertainty about what constitutes for instance copyright infringement. If you post a link to a tweet with a serial number are you committing piracy? If the website has a widget which then embeds the tweet are you worse or better off? If you post a URL which has the serial number in the URL... are you then just sharing a link or are you sharing the content? Does Google's URL shortener bare any legal responsibility under safe harbor for taking down URLs that contain copyrighted material?
Javashit developers abusing the structure of a URL.
It was supposed to go to an anchor tag - so that if index.html says [A NAME=foo] you could have a URL of the form index.html#foo that would go to the correct part of index.html.
Like everything else, it got ruined by Javashit when someone discovered you could manipulate things with it that had nothing to do with anchor tags.
And since Javashit "programmers" presume that everyone wants to run third-party executables within their browser, if they have nothing to supply their Javashit framework they just include the "#" and leave the rest of the URL blank.
Remember kids, without Javashit, it'd be a lot harder to have pop-ups, pop-unders, and interstitials, so always make sure your web page renders absolutely nothing without it active. The best and most portable web pages are single line obfuscated Javashit functions that load six typefaces and twenty scripts before rendering a single byte of the static HTML content that the user came from.
You know what's scary?
(1) That someone on friggin' slashdot has no clue what the # in a url is, and thinks that asking it is easier than just friggin' googling it
(2) That another poster on slashdot answers in apparent earnest with "I usually see it used to make you jump down to a particular heading in, e.g., a wiki article. I think it also activates stuff in scripts sometimes?"
For crying out loud, where did all the nerds go? Reddit?
I love this idea! Also, I have to add something: If the URL-shortner uses 302 to redirect to the full URL, the content part behind the anchor/hash will not be sent to the server. It will still available to the JavaScript returned from the server that is run in the browser. So the server will not know about the content. (This feature is already used by e.g. OAuth2) In addition, instead of accessing a remote server, the URL could point to localhost, and the user could run the "content unpacking" webserver locally (and maybe automatically prevent any unwanted cross-site requests, since this is the default behaviour of the browser)
Did you even bother to read the rest of the summary? This actually causes real potential issues if someone stores copyrighted information in a URL-shortener's database. Because in that case, it ISN'T just a link to information - it is the information itself.
no, copyright is causing issues.
So, yes, this sort of thing can potentially open ISPs and hosting companies up to all sorts of unexpected liability. If upheld that way, when the courts get involved, it could, in fact, break the internet.
this very same technique has been used for ages in several tools to store and propagate user data.
if abused it could break url shortener services for a short while (*), which aren't essential at all. i actually never liked them, i want to know where i'm clicking to.
(*) i guess i would take any service just minutes to impose size limits.
You know what's scary? That someone politely asks a question -which is completely on topic- and gets so much condescending flak about this. Not all nerds are html/scripting/ coding wizards.
And maybe, maybe, sometimes non-nerds stroll here accidentally. Let's quickly chase them away!