Adactio: Archive—January 28th, 2020

I’m in 100% agreement. Hence my surprise that Chrome hasn’t followed Firefox’s lead in taking at least some action on this.

I think it was clear:

“After that …not so sure, but I don’t hate your suggestion.”

But if you read it from the viewpoint that we have different assumptions—that you haven’t articulated—I can see how you can interpret it in odd ways.

Feel free to pull apart what I’m saying in search for hidden motivations or secret intent.

To the best of my knowledge there are none there, but as we’ve established, I’m an unreliable narrator so don’t take anything I say at face value.

As with any design decision, the first idea isn’t always best.

First steps are clearer than last steps.

The first step here is following Firefox’s lead.

A later step might be impementing Jake’s solution or it might not. I don’t know.

I genuinely think that incremental change—like what browsers did for indicating http/https—is the best path forward.

Evolution, not revolution.

I wrote as clearly as I could.

Responses include “I suspect that Jeremy thinks this” and “I think @adactio would be happy if that.”

I guess I’m an unreliable narrator.

I did chime in.

I’m right here.

Tonight’s conjunction of the moon and Venus is beautiful!

I’m not saying it’s a place to stop, but I think it’s a great place to start.

Right, but don’t you think that matching Firefox’s behaviour would be a good starting point?

As a first step, like you, I would love it if Chrome matched Firefox’s existing behaviour with highlighting eTLD+1.

After that …not so sure, but I don’t hate your suggestion. I like that it’s rearrangement rather than obfuscation.

Archive: January 28th, 2020