31–40 of 84 posts
Pages rely on window.open() for all sorts of non-popup things. You can't just break window.open(), or sites like DDG will stop working. Not that there aren't ways to fix this, but in general "remove the offending API" rarely works on the Web. You need a more subtle approach.
Mode 1: Render static content; allow unobtrusive JavaScript operations (perhaps capped by total operations or CPU usage).
Mode 2: Run unlimited JS operations, allow alert() and window.onbeforeunload events handers.
The second mode could be called "Application Mode" and could be turned on selectively per site.
This would allow you to give gmail.com whatever resources it needed. But clickbait-headline-slideshows.com could not, unless you explicitly allowed it.
I sometimes wonder how nice life would be if we had two modes in browsers: Mode 1: Render static content; allow unobtrusive JavaScript operations (perhaps capped by total operations or CPU usage). Mode 2: Run unlimited JS operations, allow alert() and window.onbeforeunload events handers. The second mode could be called "Application Mode" and could be turned on selectively per site. This would allow you to give gmail…
This has gotten a little more difficult since chrome changed the UI around these settings though.
Pages rely on window.open() for all sorts of non-popup things. You can't just break window.open(), or sites like DDG will stop working. Not that there aren't ways to fix this, but in general "remove the offending API" rarely works on the Web. You need a more subtle approach.
It'd be cool if window.open() just took some screen real-estate from the calling page, tho, instead of letting some content escape the shackles of its tab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be cool if window.open() just took some screen real-estate from the calling page, tho, instead of letting some content escape the shackles of its tab.
Not on my multi-monitor machine. No I wouldn't. I want a separate window so I can move it to a separate monitor
I sometimes wonder how nice life would be if we had two modes in browsers: Mode 1: Render static content; allow unobtrusive JavaScript operations (perhaps capped by total operations or CPU usage). Mode 2: Run unlimited JS operations, allow alert() and window.onbeforeunload events handers. The second mode could be called "Application Mode" and could be turned on selectively per site. This would allow you to give gmail…
> There are also sites that will kill your page history by going through a bunch of redirects to prevent you from leaving with the back button. It's 2016 and Microsoft is incapable of creating a reliable cross-site login system. Instead, we still have the disastrous mess that is live.com. Minimum 2 redirects - at least 1 of which is Javascript (seriously?) - to handle a simple login. And when your cookies go a bit wo…
> There are also sites that will kill your page history by going through a bunch of redirects to prevent you from leaving with the back button. It's 2016 and Microsoft is incapable of creating a reliable cross-site login system. Instead, we still have the disastrous mess that is live.com. Minimum 2 redirects - at least 1 of which is Javascript (seriously?) - to handle a simple login. And when your cookies go a bit wo…
2 redirect? A dozen at least. And one website for the login, another for the password. Why do simple when one can write a piece of shit!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://i.imgur.com/WIeUFTN.png
... and now click on another tab.