Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make Firefox support moz://a

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#21

Post by xg15 »

DangerousPie wrote: post #16

One of the comments there makes a good point - they should really register `moz://` as a protocol, otherwise someone will grab that at some point and cause endless confusion. On the other hand, "we used this for branding" is really not a great justification for registering a new protocol, is it...

It may not be the best reason, but aren't there already dozens of highly product-specific schemes in use? (such as steam:, unreal:, chrome: in Firefox, chrome: in Chrome - with completely different semantics -, view-source: etc etc)

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#22

Post by xg15 »

hkjgkjy wrote: post #5

It's a cool concept - but surely there are a lot of regexps our there that will now trigger in vain. Also search engines will index "moz://a" as a different thing than "mozilla". Likely, the first will be indexed as ["moz", ":", "/", "/", "a"] and the punctuation likely be thrown out, resulting in matches for "moz" and "a".

If someone actually links to moz://a, some crawlers might pick it up. But as a crawler has to parse the url and extract the scheme before it can continue, I don't see potential for confusion. Likely, "moz" wouldn't be in the list of supported schemes and the link would simply be dropped.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#23

Post by datenwolf »

Until now I didn't realize Mozilla changed their logo. Now I've seen it the typographer in me cries… The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information. So either Mozilla now rebrands themself as

moz-colon-slash-slash

or they now live with a significant portion of typography-anal nerds who dislike that logo.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#24

Post by jlgaddis »

DangerousPie wrote: post #16

One of the comments there makes a good point - they should really register `moz://` as a protocol, otherwise someone will grab that at some point and cause endless confusion. On the other hand, "we used this for branding" is really not a great justification for registering a new protocol, is it...

They (Richard Barnes) did, according to the comments.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#26

Post by roryisok »

datenwolf wrote: post #23

Until now I didn't realize Mozilla changed their logo. Now I've seen it the typographer in me cries… The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information. So either Mozilla now rebrands themself as moz-colon-slash-slash or they now live with a significant portion of typography-anal nerds who dislike that logo.

> The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information

I don't know if its ironic that this sentence had a typo and some non-working markdown

Anyway, the purpose of text may be to unambiguously convey information, but the purpose of a logo is to look cool and be memorable

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#28

Post by TorKlingberg »

datenwolf wrote: post #23

Until now I didn't realize Mozilla changed their logo. Now I've seen it the typographer in me cries… The whole purpose of text is to _unambigously_ convey information. So either Mozilla now rebrands themself as moz-colon-slash-slash or they now live with a significant portion of typography-anal nerds who dislike that logo.

There's been several front page articles about it over the last few days. It's a perfect bike shedding topic.

Re: Make Firefox support moz://a

#29

Post by pmontra »

agjmills wrote: post #20

Does this mean that http:// is httpill? httpsill ftpill ircill sshill

Good ideas for some http processing libraries. We already have httpotion and httpoison for Elixir and httparty for Ruby. A pill has its place between them.

Seriously, I disliked all 4 logos that made to Mozilla's shortlist. Moz://a wasn't the worst one graphically, but changing name to something unspeakable and ungooglable doesn't feel right. However I'll keep using Firefox. Hopefully they won't waste many energies into this bug.

Post reply on HN