The WWW in Taiwan



  • I'm sorry, really I am, but this is a long time coming.

    If you feel like the excitement of life is ruined by being able to reach out and grab any piece of information you need at any moment via the wonders of the web, maybe you could try spending some time in Taiwan.

    Today I was looking for a steakhouse in the neighbourhood. Google suggested a place called "Pasttime Cafe". Their only web presence is their Facebook page which lists their homepage as a Wretch.cc website (used to be a Geocities-type thing here but was bought and unceremoniously closed by Yahoo this year).

    Next suggestion, "My Home Steak". Everywhere including Google has the website listed as http://steakmyhome.com.tw, but the motherfucking website doesn't work without the www (this is a recurring theme and is made worse by the modern browser WTF of hiding the "www"). Even with the www, the website is horribly broken in any of the usual browsers.

    At this point I have to switch to 3G tethering because the free WiFi I'm using in this cafe expires (yep, give all my information including name, address and passport number over an unsecured connection and I get a whole hour of free WiFi).

    Next suggestion, the "Noble Family Steak House", whose motherfucking website doesn't work without the www. First I'm treated to a JavaScript popup:

    "Please use Internet Explorer to view this website correctly". I guess they added that because if you use anything else their website looks like this:

    Those news items behind the pics? They're about new branch openings all over the country. But they can't make a website that works in more than one browser? By the way the navigation is all in Flash, so bad luck if you don't/can't use that. This website was made in 2009, year of the iPad.

    Believe me, I could go on, and this is a fairly typical experience.

    The positive in all this? I feel like life's a real adventure again. Even with language barriers aside I have no idea what's going on and where I'm going when I'm here, and I kinda like it.

    (Though if their food hygiene is anything like their ability to make a website, this will be my last post on these forums)



  • @jmap said:

    Next suggestion, "My Home Steak". Everywhere including Google has the website listed as http://steakmyhome.com.tw, but the motherfucking website doesn't work without the www (this is a recurring theme and is made worse by the modern browser WTF of hiding the "www")
    This is because example.com and www.example.com can point to different servers. This is a problem with the people responsible for the website concerned, and not the browser, or anything particular to Taiwan. They clearly haven't sorted out their DNS entries properly:




    $ dig steakmyhome.com.tw www.steakmyhome.com.tw @8.8.8.8



    ; <<>> DiG 9.8.2rc1-RedHat-9.8.2-0.17.rc1.el6_4.4 <<>> steakmyhome.com.tw www.steakmyhome.com.tw @8.8.8.8

    ;; global options: +cmd

    ;; Got answer:

    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4030

    ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0



    ;; QUESTION SECTION:

    ;steakmyhome.com.tw. IN A



    ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:

    steakmyhome.com.tw. 3600 IN SOA admns1.hinet.net. hostmaster.hinet.net. 2014022018 86400 1800 604800 86400



    ;; Query time: 585 msec

    ;; SERVER: 10.255.255.3#53(10.255.255.3)

    ;; WHEN: Thu Feb 20 11:08:27 2014

    ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 99



    ;; Got answer:

    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29101

    ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0



    ;; QUESTION SECTION:

    ;www.steakmyhome.com.tw. IN A



    ;; ANSWER SECTION:

    www.steakmyhome.com.tw. 21443 IN A 60.248.90.22



    ;; Query time: 4 msec

    ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)

    ;; WHEN: Thu Feb 20 11:08:27 2014

    ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 56



  • @PJH said:

    This is a problem with the people responsible for the website concerned, and not the browser,

    I said the website itself was horribly broken in all the usual browsers. Clearly www problem is not browser-specific. It is, however, made worse by the fact that Safari and Chrome hide the http:// or http://www. portion of the URL you're at, which makes it even less likely a user will see what's happening and find their way to the website if they've followed a link that doesn't have the "www".

    @PJH said:

    or anything particular to Taiwan

    I think you missed the part where about 50% of Taiwanese websites are like this.



  • @jmap said:

    but the motherfucking website doesn't work without the www

    .i.a'unai ko karbi

    la http://cs.uwm.edu/~cs101

    la http://www.cs.uwm.edu/~cs101


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @jmap said:

    Next suggestion, the "Noble Family Steak House", whose motherfucking website doesn't work without the www. First I'm treated to a JavaScript popup:

    "Please use Internet Explorer to view this website correctly".

    Www.noble.com.tw has left the LibraryInternet.



  • @jmap said:

    It is, however, made worse by the fact that Safari and Chrome hide the http:// or http://www. portion of the URL you're at, which makes it even less likely a user will see what's happening and find their way to the website if they've followed a link that doesn't have the "www".


    So, what you are saying is that Chrome and Safari are shit browsers and Internet Explorer is infinitely superior?

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    @jmap said:
    but the motherfucking website doesn't work without the www

    .i.a'unai ko karbi

    la http://cs.uwm.edu/~cs101

    la http://www.cs.uwm.edu/~cs101

    Rings a bell.

    http://cs.bris.ac.uk
    http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk

    I was told by a member of the department that it was "expected behaviour".



  • @jmap said:

    Today I was looking for a steakhouse in the neighbourhood. Google suggested a place called "Pasttime Cafe". Their only web presence is their Facebook page which lists their homepage as a Wretch.cc website (used to be a Geocities-type thing here but was bought and unceremoniously closed by Yahoo this year).

    Next suggestion, "My Home Steak". Everywhere including Google has the website listed as http://steakmyhome.com.tw, but the motherfucking website doesn't work without the www (this is a recurring theme and is made worse by the modern browser WTF of hiding the "www"). Even with the www, the website is horribly broken in any of the usual browsers.

    Next suggestion, the "Noble Family Steak House", whose motherfucking website doesn't work without the www.
    So how was the steak?

     



  • @Snooder said:

    So, what you are saying is that Chrome and Safari are shit browsers and Internet Explorer is infinitely superior?

     

    @da Doctah said:

    So how was the steak?

    What I'm saying is that I just had the tastiest goddamn steak in recent memory, and if they think IE is the browser to use and everyone should continue to needlessly wear out their "w" key, who I am to judge?

    Or that these browsers were designed with the 21st century Web in mind but that these websites were not.



  • @jmap said:

    @PJH said:
    This is a problem with the people responsible for the website concerned, and not the browser,

    I said the website itself was horribly broken in all the usual browsers. Clearly www problem is not browser-specific. It is, however, made worse by the fact that Safari and Chrome hide the http:// or http://www. portion of the URL you're at, which makes it even less likely a user will see what's happening and find their way to the website if they've followed a link that doesn't have the "www".

    @PJH said:

    or anything particular to Taiwan

    I think you missed the part where about 50% of Taiwanese websites are like this.

     

    Cannot reproduce. Latest Chrome on Windows 7:

     Chrome address bar says 'www.bing.com'

    Yes, I know browsers all hide the 'http://' part now, but I got used to that.

    Also works fine on my company's website, which does a 301 permanent redirect from the non-www to the www version. So, the real question here is, if the non-www site doesn't respond, how did Google index it there? I checked Google search results too - they don't hide the www part of the results URLs either.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    Filed under: I actually use Firefox for real work

    Firefox is the mullet of web browsers: work in the front, party in the back.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Firefox is the mullet of web browsers: work in the front, party in the back.
     

    Agreed! Well, it'll at least stay that way until Australis, which will remove everything from the front.



  • I once saw a government website (can't find it now) where:

    all directed to different pages. I swear I couldn't make shit like this up.



  • There is only one W in Taiwan

    @jmap said:

    "Please use Internet Explorer to view this website correctly". I guess they added that because if you use anything else their website looks like this:

     

    I tried Internet Explorer and the page looks exactly the same as your picture.

     



  • @anonymous234 said:

    I once saw a government website...
     

    I work for a local government entity.

    The domains for our website are like this:

    (sometown = name of our city, st = state abbreviation)

    www.city.sometown.st.us <- our main website

    city.sometown.st.us <- no such site

    sometown.st.us <- no such site

    st.us <- no such site

    www.sometown.st.us <- website of some private company, not us(!)

    We also have:

    www.sometown-st.gov <- redirect to our main website

    portal.sometown-st.gov <- redirect to our main website

    A few of our departments have subdomains under city.sometown.st.us.  Plus we have more than a dozen other domains (various com/org).

    For email, we use username@city.sometown.st.us.

    There's more, but I think you can see our setup rhymes with shmustershmuck.  Don't even get me started on https....



  • @jmap said:

    (this is a recurring theme and is made worse by the modern browser WTF of hiding the "www").

    No browser does this.

    @jmap said:

    First I'm treated to a JavaScript popup:

    If it makes you feel better, I get the same popup on IE 11.

    No I did not bother finding out why.



  • @Arnavion said:

    @jmap said:
    (this is a recurring theme and is made worse by the modern browser WTF of hiding the "www").

    No browser does this.

    Huh... I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I thought this (I checked at the time but both of the sites I checked it with redirect to remove the www if you type it). I can only blame the lack of red meat in my system at that point in time.

    @Arnavion said:

    If it makes you feel better, I get the same popup on IE 11.

    @El_Heffe said:

    I tried Internet Explorer and the page looks exactly the same as your picture.

    Good news guys, it works fine with IE 6, 7 and 8.

    Yeah, I have those hanging around for testing and no I don't want to talk about why (but your first guess is correct).

    @Arnavion said:

    No I did not bother finding out why.

    This is where the magic happens:

    if(navigator.appName.toUpperCase().indexOf("MICROSOFT") == -1){alert("請使用 Internet Explorer 才能正常操作");}



  • @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    So, the real question here is, if the non-www site doesn't respond, how did Google index it there? I checked Google search results too - they don't hide the www part of the results URLs either.

    Google search results

    I'm guessing it's because, probably due to the image splash screen and flash + frames website, the site isn't really indexed by Google. The result on that page is from Google Maps, so it was likely specified by the company itself at some point. So their domain config has change since then or worse, they don't know how to direct people to their own website.



  • @jmap said:

    @Arnavion said:
    No I did not bother finding out why.

    This is where the magic happens:

    if(navigator.appName.toUpperCase().indexOf("MICROSOFT") == -1){alert("請使用 Internet Explorer 才能正常操作");}

    @http://stackoverflow.com/a/19020328/545475 said:

    Just found out IE11 preview has changed the value of navigator.appName:

    before IE11, this value is: "Microsoft Internet Explorer"

    now with IE11 preview, this value has been changed to: "Netscape"

    Heh. It probably did work in IE too when it was made in 2009.



  • @jmap said:

    @Arnavion said:
    @jmap said:
    (this is a recurring theme and is made worse by the modern browser WTF of hiding the "www").

    No browser does this.

    Huh... I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I thought this

    Looking through all the sites I have bookmarked, I noticed that very few thave 'www' in the URL.  Since it's become more or less standard to hide the 'http://' many people probably just assumed that the browser was also hiding the 'www'.  Also, most websites (i.e., those that are configured properly) work just fine regardless of whether you use www.example.com or just example.com.

    The key phrase of course being 'configured properly'.

     



  • @Arnavion said:

    @jmap said:
    @Arnavion said:
    No I did not bother finding out why.

    This is where the magic happens:

    if(navigator.appName.toUpperCase().indexOf("MICROSOFT") == -1){alert("請使用 Internet Explorer 才能正常操作");}

    @http://stackoverflow.com/a/19020328/545475 said:

    Just found out IE11 preview has changed the value of navigator.appName:

    before IE11, this value is: "Microsoft Internet Explorer"

    now with IE11 preview, this value has been changed to: "Netscape"

    Heh. It probably did work in IE too when it was made in 2009.

    AOL can sue Microsoft for 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000mol dollars



  • @Ben L. said:

    AOL can sue Microsoft for 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000mol dollars
     

    Very good point. I wonder why they'd want to break backwards compatibility AND use a trademark they don't own...

    @El_Heffe said:

    Looking through all the sites I have
    bookmarked, I noticed that very few thave 'www' in the URL.  Since it's
    become more or less standard to hide the 'http://' many people probably
    just assumed that the browser was also hiding the 'www'.  Also, most
    websites (i.e., those that are configured properly) work just fine
    regardless of whether you use www.example.com or just example.com.

    Our company website had the www vs non-www duplicate content issue before I stated. I went down the www route because it was possible we'd want subdomains in the future and there are potential technical hassles involved. Google it for more info.

    @OldBrooklyn said:


    www.city.sometown.st.us <- our main website

    ...

    www.sometown.st.us <- website of some private company, not us(!)

     

    This is a big problem. That probably means your company doesn't own your domain! Maybe your town council or whatever owns it, and sells out subdomains to people.Either way, it's a hassle.



  •  @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    Very good point. I wonder why they'd want to break backwards compatibility AND use a trademark they don't own...

    Probably because the standard says it is ok.

    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/system-state-and-capabilities.html

     



  • @cyxxon said:

    Probably because the standard says it is ok.

    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/system-state-and-capabilities.html

     @html5 spec said:

    <dfn id="dom-navigator-appname" title="dom-navigator-appName">appName</dfn>

    Must return either the string "Netscape" or the full name of the browser, e.g. "Mellblom Browsernator".

    w...t...f...

    So can AOL sue the W3C now?

     



  • @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    @cyxxon said:

    Probably because the standard says it is ok.

    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/system-state-and-capabilities.html

     @html5 spec said:

    appName

    Must return either the string "Netscape" or the full name of the browser, e.g. "Mellblom Browsernator".

    w...t...f...

    So can AOL sue the W3C now?

     


    It goes back to the beginning of the web. Because there are stupid people.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    @cyxxon said:

    Probably because the standard says it is ok.

    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/system-state-and-capabilities.html

     @html5 spec said:

    appName

    Must return either the string "Netscape" or the full name of the browser, e.g. "Mellblom Browsernator".

    w...t...f...

    So can AOL sue the W3C now?

     


    It goes back to the beginning of the web. Because there are stupid people.

    That link was surprisingly informative and mildly entertaining. Good job, Ben.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    That link was surprisingly informative and mildly entertaining. Good job, Ben.

    In all fairness, his link is for the User-Agent HTTP header (or equivalently navigator.userAgent), not the value of navigator.appName I can't find any historical discussion for that particular property.

    @Ben L. said:

    It goes back to the beginning of the web. Because there are stupid people.

    It solved a legitimate problem at the time it was created. You can only rely on the User-Agent header to detect browser support for frames. Feature detection using JS doesn't work for that.



  • @jmap said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @jmap said:
    but the motherfucking website doesn't work without the www

    .i.a'unai ko karbi

    la http://cs.uwm.edu/~cs101

    la http://www.cs.uwm.edu/~cs101

    Rings a bell.

    http://cs.bris.ac.uk
    http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk

    I was told by a member of the department that it was "expected behaviour".

    It in no way surprises me that a university CS department would be pedantic about such a thing. Besides, that's how it was done in 1987, so why change it?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Vanders said:

    Besides, that's how it was done in 1987, so why change it?
    Wrong date; that's either too recent or too long ago. It's too long ago for the web (especially in the UK, which used its own weird-ass scheme at the time) and too recent for most CS departments, which ossified in the 1960s.

    And yes, I work in a CS department.



  • @dkf said:

    @Vanders said:
    Besides, that's how it was done in 1987, so why change it?
    Wrong date; that's either too recent or too long ago. It's too long ago for the web (especially in the UK, which used its own weird-ass scheme at the time) and too recent for most CS departments, which ossified in the 1960s.

    And yes, I work in a CS department.


    It's about the right date for implementing DNS. Also about the right date for pulling out of ones ass when posting on a forum where the exact date doesn't matter for the purpose of a simple joke.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Vanders said:

    It's about the right date for implementing DNS. Also about the right date for pulling out of ones ass when posting on a forum where the exact date doesn't matter for the purpose of a simple joke.

    I demand full scientific rigor[1][2] and at least[3] four[4][5] references for my Internet jokes.

    [1][2][3][4][5] My ass


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @joe.edwards said:

    I demand full scientific rigor[1][2] and at least[3] four[4][5] references for my Internet jokes.

    [1][2][3][4][5] My ass

    Your ass?[unreliable source?]


  • @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    This is a big problem. That probably means your company doesn't own your domain! Maybe your town council or whatever owns it, and sells out subdomains to people.Either way, it's a hassle.

    Or it could be simply misconfigured. I know for a while on our nginx server would simply pick a random vhost as the default, if you hit it with a domain it didn't know about. Luckily nginx wasn't serving the / page so damage was minimal. (We host a few thousand sites and I fixed the nginx config to force a known default and I'm not even the main sysadmin)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.