Half a thought but I wonder xorurls should be cast as xor://xorurl rather than as if they were a chosen domain name and the same as safe:// ?.. that then throughout the CLI outputs and the browser. I don’t know, if there’s benefit immediately but wonder that what those are is distinct and might aid perception of what is used where.
An NRS URL is like a domain name URL in clearnet, a XOR-URL is like an IP address URL in clearnet, they both encode in different ways the location of the content. In clearnet you have e.g. https://domainname and https://192.168.1.1, the same scheme, because the scheme is the same as in XOR and NRS URLs, just the resolution to the content address is different.
The difference is that the web client can tell from the address whether to look up the IP address using DNS or use it directly.
Using the protocol is one way of doing this for SAFE, meaning all
safe:// addresses must resolve through NRS.
I’m not sure if it is worth it or not. Simpler is best unless the cost is worth it.
You will find conversations about this on the forum. Consensus was that a single safe:// header was best for a variety of reasons.
I guess it is obvious and not confusable to us but for computers it needs a double take to resolve what to do… and perhaps xors are more for use by computers.
Likely doesn’t matter but just struck me as more correct to talk of what it is.
Still, an xor is a safeurl; so, the parallel with http flies.