11–20 of 381 posts
The shenanigans Google been doing to the url bar is super hostile. Trying to copy the domain of a url without the protocol just infuriates me.
Not defending that change, but when do you ever need to copy just the domain instead of the full URL?
/rant
Yes this has been a big issue for a very long time now. Google wants to push a release where it will display the hostname of the amp site even if the content is being served from google.com[1]. Mozilla (and Apple) are strictly against it and thank god for Mozilla. If Google had a bigger market share this would already be something we would have been living with. I'm sure there are better sources for this, but here is…
Being completely against AMP for obvious reasons, I'm personally not against signed exchanges itself, this feature could spawn a whole new class of decentralised and harder to censor web hosting, that sounds like a great addition.
It's a really bad look on Google's part to be pushing this.
The shenanigans Google been doing to the url bar is super hostile. Trying to copy the domain of a url without the protocol just infuriates me.
Disable this setting in chrome by going to chrome://flags and switching #omnibox-context-menu-show-full-urls to enabled. Then right click the URL bar and select "alawys show full URLS"
Yes this has been a big issue for a very long time now. Google wants to push a release where it will display the hostname of the amp site even if the content is being served from google.com[1]. Mozilla (and Apple) are strictly against it and thank god for Mozilla. If Google had a bigger market share this would already be something we would have been living with. I'm sure there are better sources for this, but here is…
I don’t really think Google’s plan is that weird. And it would be amazing for decentralized networks, archiving, and offline web apps. Google can’t just serve nyt.com — they can serve a specific bundle of resources published and signed by nyt.com verified by your browser to be authentic and unmodified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being completely against AMP for obvious reasons, I'm personally not against signed exchanges itself, this feature could spawn a whole new class of decentralised and harder to censor web hosting, that sounds like a great addition.
Going to also spawn a whole new class of semi-persistent malicious pages (say created via XSS) that once signed and captured can be continuously replayed to clients until expiration.