Hacker News Reader

moreover, it would make no sense to own www.pepsi without also already owning www.pepsi.com

Why not? Some companies only own <company>.net or <company>.co.uk, without owning <company>.com.

Fair point. But www.pepsi looks broken to me. If you're going to decide you care about people who type addresses in by hand, it seems counterproductive to go against the conventions they're used to.

But if new TLDs become common I guess that will change with time.

www.pepsi does look broken, but http://pepsi/ is fine. We just need browsers to stop ignoring bare TLDs, like they do now if you don't put the http:// before.

This opens up more problems though.

For example how would the Google Chrome browser work (and search to a degree), does a user who types "pepsi" into their omnibar want to go to http://pepsi/ or search for pepsi?

It also adds confusion for webmasters trying to parses URLs on their website. When a user types pepsi.com/coke into their blog for example that link can be made clickable to http://pepsi.com/coke/ where it can't for pepsi/coke

The problem of detecting URLs with weird TLDs could be solved by using relative URLs (RFC 1808 §4) with the protocol omitted. It would put that vestigial // to good use—//coca-cola is a URL just as @cocacola is a Twitter handle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com