Announcement

**Snowhog** · Nov 14, 2018, 11:54 AM

The offending character is "your" apostrophe in the word won't. It is a 'smart quote', not a regular apostrophe. What browser and possibly plug-ins are you using to connect to KFN?

Check out the od command in a konsole.

Code:

Last login: Tue Nov 13 16:15:03 on ttys000
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od
0000000    067567  161156  114600  005164                                
0000010
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "’t" | od
0000000    100342  072231  000012                                        
0000005
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od -
od: -: No such file or directory
od: -: Bad file descriptor
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od -c
0000000    w   o   n   ’  **  **   t  \n                                
0000010
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ man od
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od -a
0000000    w   o   n   ?  80  99   t  nl                                
0000010
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$

**GreyGeek** · Nov 14, 2018, 11:56 AM

The comments are very interesting.
The most interesting comment is:

iAPX Smack-Fu Master, in training
reply
Nov 12, 2018 5:25 PM
Popular
The problem is not HTTP over TCP, it is out-sourced Ads and trackers.

67 requests, 1.0MB transferred, 1.48s with AdBlock Plus and my own Tracker Blocking Chrome Extension.
263 requests, 2.8MB transferred, 26.92s without any of that.
This is the home page of Ars Technica as I write it (full reload).

Do you think that HTTP/3 will generate 4X less request, will be 3X faster to transfer and will be 18X faster to complete loading?!?

This is not an HTTP problem, this a website design and abuse of ads and tracker problem

Google is trying to solve or hide a Google created problem.

I get about the same results turning ad blockers and noscript on and off.

HTTP/TCP have built-in protocols to make sure packets arrrive, they arrive correctly, and in order. UDP does not have such requirements. There is no guarantee that a packet sent will be received, and the receiver has NO way of knowing that. To make UDP useful they'd have to implement the reception, error-checking and ordering on top of UDP, and they'd end up with "HTTP".

Then there is the problem of adoption. IPv6 has been "ready" for 18 years and it still has only about 25% (the last time I checked) of the Internet traffic in the US. (Other countries vary higher and lower). IF QUIC is adopted it will probably take as long to become common as IPv6 is taking, if not longer.

QUIC may speed up trunkline traffic but I'll wager that it will be converted to HTTP by the ISP's or their immediate precursor. There is TOO much work written in HTTP to dump it in favor of QUIC. For example, the State of Nebraska uses Oracle's APEX to write HTTP based webpages interfaced with Oracle 10g and they have thousands of pages on the web and have invested millions in $$$ and over a couple million person-hours to write those HTTP pages. Not only will the State NOT change those pages to UDP they couldn't afford to do so even if they wanted to. And yes, I've written and used "automatic conversion" scripts so I know that the hype they generate is MUCH more than the results they give. Just write scripts to convert Lotus Notes to Microsoft's Office, et. al., and you'll know what I mean. So, who ever vends the State of Nebraska's Internet service will be sure to send and receive HTTP packets. And, Nebraska isn't even a big fish in the pond full of the 50 states, to say nothing of the International pond of 200+ countries and their political subdivisions. QUIC adoption would make a tortise seem like lightening.

That's why my bet is that QUIC will be used on the main trunks and feeder lines but not at the ISP level.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Nov 14, 2018, 11:57 AM

I'm using a Firefox browser fork, Palemoon. I see the apostrophe and understand the problem... Thanks for the feedback.

**Snowhog** · Nov 14, 2018, 12:03 PM

You can check the configuration settings in Palemoon to see if there is a smart quoting option.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Nov 14, 2018, 12:04 PM

GG: I concur. It will be long time coming and perhaps not even visible to the end user (you and I). Like so many other changes, I expect to encounter problems with implementation and exploitation by the "script kiddies"...

Your comment about ISPs and site developers not wanting to dump their HTTP code is spot on.

**GreyGeek** · Nov 14, 2018, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Snowhog View Post

The offending character is "your" apostrophe in the word won't. It is a 'smart quote', not a regular apostrophe. What browser and possibly plug-ins are you using to connect to KFN?

Check out the od command in a konsole.

Code:

Last login: Tue Nov 13 16:15:03 on ttys000
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od
0000000    067567  161156  114600  005164                                
0000010
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "’t" | od
0000000    100342  072231  000012                                        
0000005
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od -
od: -: No such file or directory
od: -: Bad file descriptor
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od -c
0000000    w   o   n   ’  **  **   t  \n                                
0000010
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ man od
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$ echo "won’t" | od -a
0000000    w   o   n   ?  80  99   t  nl                                
0000010
Pauls-iMac:~ paul$

Interesting. I learn something new every day here.

Here's my output:

Code:

GreyGeek:~$ echo  "won't" | od -c
0000000   w   o   n   '   t  \n
0000006
jerry@GreyGeek:~$ echo  "won't" | od -a
0000000   w   o   n   '   t  nl
0000006

**TWPonKubuntu** · Nov 14, 2018, 12:06 PM

Snowhog, I see that the apostrophe needs to be escaped or converted to left apostrophe (`). I just copied the text from the original article and did not see the contraction until the KFN entry form dialog choked on it. My bad.

**jlittle** · Nov 14, 2018, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by TWPonKubuntu View Post

My bad.

Not really, IMO. From Wikipedia:

U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK
Punctuation apostrophe. Serves as both an apostrophe and closing single quotation mark. This is the preferred character to use for apostrophe according to the Unicode standard.

We'll see more of it as this "preferred" usage spreads. I try to remember to use it in scripting contexts.

**Snowhog** · Nov 14, 2018, 03:42 PM

But it isn't on a standard (US) keyboard, at least, it isn't on mine. That was the first thing I looked for when TWPonKubuntu posted.

**Goeroeboeroe** · Nov 14, 2018, 05:38 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, because I'm absolutely no expert on this kind of things. But as far as I know the protocol has nothing to do with the code of the site. As far as I understand it, the changes will be on the server side and in the browsers. If you really have to change html/css etc., it's not going to work. w3c tried that with replacing html with xhtml and that failed completely.
Some evil ghost whispers in my ear Google is not doing this only because they love humanity. I wonder if this can mean you won't be able to block only a request for an ad, or only for a script, etc. That would be in Google's interest, because you won't be able to block their ads. But I have too less knowledge to be sure of this.

**GreyGeek** · Nov 14, 2018, 06:01 PM

Several in the comment section remarked that they didn't trust Google's motives. Neither do I, since they've renigged on their "Do No Evil" promise.

**TWPonKubuntu** · Nov 14, 2018, 11:57 PM

About the only thing I trust is that Google will continue to do what it has done in the past, hence they are not to be trusted to do what is best for the end user (You and I again).

**jlittle** · Nov 15, 2018, 01:56 AM

(This is the community café sub-forum...)
I don't think you guys get Google, and why they've been so successful.

They're not like traditional advertisers, that pander to evil corporate marketers that want to brainwash consumers; it is not in their interest to sell out their users completely the way, say, Facebook does. By "not in their interest" I just mean there's more profitable approaches. If Google gets it right you get ads you want to see, and their paying customers have found that it's much more effective and efficient to get clicks from Google than the old scattergun ads.

So Google doesn't want to align themselves with the advertisers and slavishly serve you up to them. It's better for Google to balance the users' interests with the advertisers. Of course this is achieved only somewhat, but assuming they're the old wolves in new clothing misses a lot IMO.

Much of the criticism directed at Google is calumny originating from those whose entire business models are being subverted by them. (F. ex., Microsoft, TV, publishing...) To rein in Google, parroting both that stuff and criticism due to the old ways, won't help.

And rein them in we must...

Regards, John Little

**chimak111** · Nov 15, 2018, 03:04 AM

Here's why I find Google evil: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium...tail?id=863230. Soon users who prefer dark themes will have a white ominbox to stare at if the browser being used in Google Chrome 71 and higher

Announcement

The next version of HTTP

The next version of HTTP

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment