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

Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

chromestory.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 332 posts

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#181

Post by rajangdavis »

In my mind's eye, I can see someone chaining multiple events to trigger malicious behavior with this.

-Would the scrolling occur AFTER page load?

-What if the text that is passed in is removed/never existed?

-What if the text exists in multiple places? I guess it immediately goes to the first instance, but if you are trying to link to the second, third, etc., this API wouldn't work...

-What if the text screws up a URL query parameter?

-How will this impact SEO?

-Would this still work if the parent element of a text node is set to "display:none"?

I just hope it doesn't become a thing with sites relying on this functionality.

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#182

Post by fock »

chillydawg wrote: post #148
martin_a wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did it on Monday evening. Great choice, no problems at all. Could import all data, also switched to Firefox on my Smartphone where I can now run uBlock, too.

It makes such a difference on mobile being able to run a good blocker.

This. I would argue that Chrome seems faster (probably proprietary tech on most sites), but with µBlock, this is gone and there's no ads.

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#183

Post by Felz »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #105
kordlessagain wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> new things that are constantly added By golly, that's the problem right there.

One thing I’ve discovered from learning and using Common Lisp seriously is that it’s really important for a system to be specified in a way that allows for extensions to the system to be implemented in terms of primitives the language provides (e.g. you want a new language construct, write a macro to transform your desired syntax into Common Lisp). In languages and systems that don’t have this feature, an implementat…

There are significant tradeoffs between shared constructs and self contained systems. Self contained systems resist ossification; they can be unilaterally replaced. A shared construct has to evolve in step with all of its users.

But the self contained system will have thousands of incompatible implementations, and the shared system will be easier to interact with and build on top of.

What this means is that a browser should standardize on things meant to be interfaces, and leave out all of the rest. Unfortunately, they didn't and now browser engines are huge and impossible to evolve except by adding more stuff.

Similarly, the value of programming languages is almost entirely in the interfaces they provide which allow you to develop code. Lisp provides almost none of that, and that is why it failed to become mainstream.

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#184

Post by rolae »

supermatt wrote: post #168
airza wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord, I see pages that would break from this constantly...

you constantly see pages with #targetText=blah fragments?

I think he means it the other way around. You have a Single page application with routing based on #someRoute, then someone tries to share some link with the #targetText=... which will lead to an invalid route. Or am I missunderstanding something?

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#185

Post by kreetx »

fareesh wrote: post #137
Slartie wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did exactly this, a few weeks ago. Was heavy Chrome user, now fully on Firefox (and Safari on mobile). I am so satisfied with this decision, and the transition was much easier than expected.

I would do it instantly if the devtools were half as convenient as Chrome. Unfortunately they are super clunky

I use them all the time, don't seem clunky to me. What else is not working other than the websockets inspection you mentioned?

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#186

Post by fooyc »

Can this be used to gain some informations about the content of a webpage, with a timing attack ?

Searching a phrase on a webpage will be faster when the phrase exists, on average. If this timing is observable, this could be exploited to guess the content of a web page.

Someone did this already with selector-based anchors: https://blog.sheddow.xyz/css-timing-attack/

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#188

Post by amitjam »

jhasse wrote: post #154
VadimPR wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - but it's hardly an issue in practice.

Well, watching videos is one of the things I do most with my browser. So this is a no-go for me, as the fans of my laptop will start spinning with Firefox (and battery life is worse).

http://www.alerttips.com/

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#189

Post by amitjam »

martin_a wrote: post #149
chillydawg wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes such a difference on mobile being able to run a good blocker.

Totally. I am also running my own Ad blocking VPN with Pihole/PiVPN and routing all my mobile traffic through that. It's just great and probably the best $4/month (for the Vultr instance) I have ever spent.

check out site http://www.alerttips.com/

Re: Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page

#190

Post by crehn »

csarven wrote: post #160
ru999gol wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so glad that google just sometimes ignores W3C's horrible design-by-committe nonsense. Its the same reason XHTML failed. #selector(type=TextQuoteSelector,exact=foo) vs. #targetText=foo /edited to be a more fair comparison

I urge you to dig a little deeper and see why things like `prefix`, `exact`, `suffix` exists in that particular example: https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-states/#TextQuoteSelector_de... Please note that you've actually changed the example! If you just want to include `exact` or "targetText", you can still do: http://csarven.ca/dokieli-rww#selector(type=TextQuoteSelecto... or equivalent: http://csarven.ca/dokieli-rww#s…

Even with that in mind, the W3C spec adds unnecessarily verbose syntax fluff.
Post reply on HN