61–70 of 733 posts
This might be harmful to github pages where it would hide the repository name. If they include this without offering an option to turn it off, I will quit using Chrome.
Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it was easy to spot with just a glance at URL bar, now one has to do additional clicking or opening devtools.
Probably we are at the crossroads where developers need separate, not dumbed-down version of browser.
So Chrome is only showing the domain part now? Just like Safari has been for a long time? Personally I quite like it. From what I understand the main goal is to make phishing attacks more clear to the user, since this is ultimately only a thing the end-user can protect against. Removing the noise definitely helps for that. Having had it like this in Safari for a long time, I must say I greatly prefer this over the ol…
This might be harmful to github pages where it would hide the repository name. If they include this without offering an option to turn it off, I will quit using Chrome.
Also any of the many sites where content for different people is hosted under example.com/~username/content
I hope I'm just being alarmist.
So Chrome is only showing the domain part now? Just like Safari has been for a long time? Personally I quite like it. From what I understand the main goal is to make phishing attacks more clear to the user, since this is ultimately only a thing the end-user can protect against. Removing the noise definitely helps for that. Having had it like this in Safari for a long time, I must say I greatly prefer this over the ol…
Safari has an option to include the full URL. As a developer, I need the full URL so I turn on the option. If Chrome by some miracle actually goes through with this, I'll try to see if I can get around it (because at the end of the day, everyone uses chrome and chrome dev tools are by far the best).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to Firefox years ago and never looked back.
It is weird not more people just respond this way rather than getting all worked up about it...
I think this feature is important enough for me to consider switching this time.
Isn't this a good example of "feature creep"? I dont see any reason why it makes a browser more useful when the URL is partially hidden. It reminds me of a company which developed a product which was more or less done. So the SWE manager and the product manager made up new (pretty useless) features just to tell their bosses the devs are busy and the team must stay intact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're already trying to force that at the network level instead of the browser level using signed exchanges. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/11/signed-exc...
Signed exchanges are quite neat actually, they do not seem to depend on AMP at all. You could even use them to get arbitrary static resources hosted via IPFS in a seamless way.
But my understanding is that they intend to use signed exchanges specifically for their amp URLs, finally finishing their efforts of forcing people to go to google.com without them ever having realized it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to Firefox years ago and never looked back.
It is weird not more people just respond this way rather than getting all worked up about it...