Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-10 Thread Tony Mechelynck
On 09/04/11 18:40, sal migondis wrote: I don't mind typing the extra www. but I tried this in seamonkey 2.0.13 (linux) and it just works. I don't remember changing these settings manually (under Edit-Preferences-Location Bar) but you can specify adding www and/or com when a web page is 'not

Sharing images on mailing lists (was: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work)

2011-04-10 Thread Adam Monsen
On 04/08/2011 02:44 AM, Linda W wrote: I wish there was a way to post a screen shot. There are places online which host images for free. Seems like they are called image pastebins or photo pastbins. You can upload an image to one of these sites, then link to it in your post. * http://inky.ws *

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-09 Thread Tom
While we're at the topic of the site; It's really really dated. I'd make at least the plugin section a git/svn/hg repo host or tie in to github and other services and include user feedback (comments maybe, tickets would be better). Time to step into 2011 and leave 1999 behind? On Sat, Apr 9, 2011

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-09 Thread Christian Brabandt
Hi donothing! On Fr, 08 Apr 2011, donothing successfully wrote: On 8 April 2011 07:58, John Beckett johnb.beck...@gmail.com wrote: […] whatever the merits, this is one of those situations where it is not worth debating about some theoretical benefit of being able to use vim.org without

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-09 Thread Erik Christiansen
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 02:24:23PM +0200, Christian Brabandt wrote: On Fr, 08 Apr 2011, donothing successfully wrote: A user may well assume the site is down if the url doesn't resolve. Seconded. This had bugged me many many times with various browsers. Thirded. Particularly, if after

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-09 Thread Benjamin R. Haskell
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011, Erik Christiansen wrote: On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 02:24:23PM +0200, Christian Brabandt wrote: On Fr, 08 Apr 2011, donothing successfully wrote: A user may well assume the site is down if the url doesn't resolve. Seconded. This had bugged me many many times with various

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-09 Thread sal migondis
I don't mind typing the extra www. but I tried this in seamonkey 2.0.13 (linux) and it just works. I don't remember changing these settings manually (under Edit-Preferences-Location Bar) but you can specify adding www and/or com when a web page is 'not found', so I would assume they are the

why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread realfun
(not sure who to contact with, send email to vimonline- supp...@lists.sourceforge.net get no response) Twitter/Facebook/Google/Flickr/Yahoo/Microsoft, all these websites works well without www. in the url. But type vim.org in the url of google chrome simply opens nothing - it's required to input

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread Linda W
realfun wrote: But type vim.org in the url of google chrome simply opens nothing - it's required to input www.vim.org instead. I 2nd the motion... It's a pain to have vim.org be non-standard, as I never type in 'www.' in front of sitenames (RSI, less typing...)

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread donothing successfully
On 8 April 2011 07:58, John Beckett johnb.beck...@gmail.com wrote: […] whatever the merits, this is one of those situations where it is not worth debating about some theoretical benefit of being able to use vim.org without your browser deciding that it doesn't work, so it should try

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread Linda W
Tony Mechelynck wrote: Maybe because Chrome doesn't act like most other browsers? When SeaMonkey doesn't find a URL, it will try www. before and/or .com after; this behaviour is configurable but this is the default. Firefox does the same and so does Konqueror. I think IE does too but I could

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread Tony Mechelynck
On 08/04/11 10:22, Linda W wrote: Tony Mechelynck wrote: Maybe because Chrome doesn't act like most other browsers? When SeaMonkey doesn't find a URL, it will try www. before and/or .com after; this behaviour is configurable but this is the default. Firefox does the same and so does Konqueror.

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread Linda W
Tony Mechelynck wrote: To make it work, there may or may not be something in Firefox's Preferences (or, on Windows, Options) but you can make it work in any case as follows: ... instructions follow... --- I wish there was a way to post a screen shot. I typed in 'about:config', and typed in

Re: RE: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread Luke
I read the thread and nowhere in it does it argue that vim.org should not resolve. Where do you get the opinion that the DNS manager disagrees with resolving vim.org? -- You received this message from the vim_use maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.

Re: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread Tony Mechelynck
On 08/04/11 11:44, Linda W wrote: Tony Mechelynck wrote: To make it work, there may or may not be something in Firefox's Preferences (or, on Windows, Options) but you can make it work in any case as follows: ... instructions follow... --- I wish there was a way to post a screen shot. I typed

RE: RE: why not remove www? Currently http://vim.org/ doesn't work

2011-04-08 Thread John Beckett
Luke wrote: I read the thread and nowhere in it does it argue that vim.org should not resolve. Where do you get the opinion that the DNS manager disagrees with resolving vim.org? It's a little subtle but correct. I think that what happened is that someone mailed the DNS manager directly, then