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

211–220 of 332 posts

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

#211

Post by SquareWheel »

xg15 wrote: post #117
SquareWheel wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SPDY was donated to the IETF for adoption into the HTTP/2 standard. Other browser vendors only implemented it at that time. WebP is a file format and doesn't fall into the normal standardization process. Browsers implement support for new file formats at their own behest.

Yes. After SPDY had already been implemented and shipped in Chrome.

Of course, that's how it works. Chrome is hardly alone in field testing their new feature proposals.

You'll note that they're also willing to kill features which are not adopted, like PPAPI.

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

#212

Post by Guest10928391 »

prepend wrote: post #195
rolae wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You’re thinking of ?targetText= or &targetText= Hash isn’t used for query parameters.

One that quickly comes to mind...

https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Adventure/#p=3&tab=To...

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

#214

Post by xg15 »

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?

This assumes all SPAs would ignore unknown parameters they see in the fragment part. Even if the SPA itself doesn't use "targetText", it could still try to validate the fragment and abort with errors on unknown data present.

Also, this would require the "targetText" parameter to live peacefully alongside other parameters. (That in turn would require there were a standard definition of "parameter" inside the fragment at all)

E.g, if Chrome encounters an url with an existing fragment, it would somehow have to combine this with its own targetText parameter and hope the SPA still understands the combined fragment.

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

#216

Post by xg15 »

ru999gol wrote: post #152
csarven wrote: post #140

I would like to urge the browser developers/makers to adopt existing proposals which came through open consensus which do precisely cover the same use cases (and more!) W3C Reference Note on Selectors and States: https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-states/ It is part of the suite of specs that came through the W3C Web Annotation Working Group: https://www.w3.org/annotation/ More examples in W3C Note Embedding Web Annotat…

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

The bottom one looks prettier, yes. Does it also take into account all the problems the first one does?

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

#217

Post by tyingq »

coldtea wrote: post #203
jypepin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't url fragment originally used for page position already? Like url.com/#title would scroll to the page the div with id "title"? In that case I don't feel like using url fragment for a word position is so much breaking it, it keeps the use of url fragment for info about page position, right?

> Aren't url fragment originally used for page position already? Like url.com/#title would scroll to the page the div with id "title"? That was the pre-SPA, traditional role of anchors... If you did any html between 1995-6 and 2005, you'd use it for that. Then, with AJAX/SPAs, # was used for state (pre-history API) -- and I'd assume many webpages are still left at that use.

Of course, page anchors are still in wide use, and not just on old pages. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/README.md#inst...

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

#218

Post by bryanrasmussen »

coldtea wrote: post #207
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lots of older or poorly written SPAs use the hash exactly in this way. I guess their fault for being poorly written, like those people who allowed GET requests to /deleteaccount based on the theory that you had to be logged in with a browser for it to ever happen and not considering that google would make an extension that did all get requests on a page on entry.

They didn't use it because they were "poorly written", it was a "state of the art" technique back in the day. Gmail used, others used it. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15238391/hash-params-vs-...

sure, it was state of the art back in the day, but state of the art over time depreciates to technical debt, and the ones that are left using what was once state of the art are now poorly written.

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

#219

Post by chillydawg »

martin_a wrote: post #150
chillydawg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't inspect websocket frames. It's ridiculous.

I'm out of that, but maybe somebody else in here got an idea how to fix your problem with that.

My solution is to use chrome when faced with that particular limitation. There's a bug open on the mozilla tracker and it's been there for a while but no one seems to care.

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

#220

Post by palerdot »

prepend wrote: post #195
rolae wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You’re thinking of ?targetText= or &targetText= Hash isn’t used for query parameters.

Backbone JS uses hash for routing. Case in point - http://backbonejs.org/#Router. There should be lot of sites that uses hash params as routes which still exists from the early SPA era.
Post reply on HN