Rename http to https

[GreenLunar]

No description provided.

[Martii]

@GreenLunar
Always should have a commit summary including the reason behind it. e.g. breadcrumbs for all with searches and linear commit views. So -1 on this part.

wikipedia upmixes to https for example and that would save a client side trip... so that part is a +1

however some of them don't upgrade to secure:

• One of the disadvantages of https is loss of privacy for guests which is why if http is available on some sites we should let the user choose if they want secure or not. Logging in on those sites should be smart enough to go secure.
• https uses more bandwidth for the client to negotiate... so best to avoid it when possible. Being a guest visiting is one of those instances.
• Typically an issue is created first... the Establishing Owner (sizzle) and Active Maintainer (that's me) is the exception to the rule... master.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request-process
• If a http link is dead and has a corresponding https... then obviously we should fix that.

EDIT You didn't indicate PR READY label or comment but I'm jumping the gun (hence part of my responsibilities as Active Maintainer) as the saying goes because the missing commit summaries and no issue created for it.

Rather than feed the hysteria of the misnomer of https is better all the time it would be wise to balance it out. Secure access doesn't mean secure DNS lookup. e.g. you might have someone eavesdrop on an open wifi connection what you are viewing but because the vast majority of DNS providers around aren't secured all that potential eavesdropper has to do is follow the DNS trail and you lose the perceived privacy of https.

So in summary... two main issues... no commit summary (and I don't mean here on the GitHub issue tracker) and secondly some of the links have a preference of http e.g. they don't use Strict-Transport-Security to upgrade. So -1, -1, +1 which comes out to -1 plus the veto for not following the contribution guidelines. :) EDIT: @sizzlemctwizzle may of course override this with an Establishing Owner Veto/Vote/Merge since he is the Establishing Owner... however he may not come along to do that before closure of this PR. Created the labels for both of these just now and will add them into the CONTRIBUTING.md in a bit.

I really appreciate the effort and assistance but I'm going to have to -1 this. Due to the lack of commit summaries that's an Active Maintainer veto... which means closure of this PR and you get to do it as a new PR with the commit summaries intact. Since another collaborator burned it for everyone... issues must be created first... that way it can be discussed first... similar to parliamentary process where a motion is made, then discussion, then vote (sometimes), then approval/adoption vs disproval/rejection.

I was lenient on the initial QupZilla PR because your subject sort of covered what you were doing... with further investigation I found out you were "adding a browser to the docs" which would have been a fine commit summary.

Ref:
#202

[GreenLunar]

I feel flattered to receive such elaborated comment! 😮
I have taken all of the above into consideration.

Thank you.

[GreenLunar]

This site has a preference of http with optional https. -1

Comment by @Martii
Originally posted at https://github.com/GreenLunar/OpenUserJS.org/commit/df9d5b50022cdbecfeb96fcf1daca1a07459ef16#commitcomment-16372957

[Martii]

LOL Sorry about the posting on the Commits (your repo) instead of the Files (this repo)... makes mental note to pay more attention to GHs ever changing features :)