Full url in Opera 17. Any chances?
-
LisandreL last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Chrome and Firefox would require me to install an add-on just so I can be able to use a Paste&Go keyboard shortcut for example, an add-on so I can right-click selected text and get "Search with" so I can select one from my list of search engines, it would require an extension for a decent Speed Dial and so on...
Basically I do not care if functionality is built-in or is brought by extensions. While it works well - I am ok with it.
I had extensions in Opera for Speed Dial and for search with and even for auto complete which is built-in functionality in other browsers.
Though I must say I loved Opera built-in Notes more than Evernote.Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Also, if you lived with Opera 12 and older where it was common for sites to display messages like "our site is not compatible with your browser", reading this "outdated browser" message shouldn't be scary.
It's ok while they just show you the message. But if the message blocks all the site without an option to continue without changing «outdated browser»…
Well, now I saw rather few of such sites, but I guess their amount would increase.Originally posted by rafaelluik:
And no "technical user" was able to justify the need of seeing HTTP/HTTPS/FTP and the rest of URL parameters in the address field for everyday tasks.
It's not a need but a desire.
Cause this cuted urls look dumb and still not informative.
In case of hiding all this unneeded technical details and show it user-friendly I like the Yandex.browser way. -
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by funksoulbro:
rafaelliuk would be saying "Opera 19 is great!" if they released it and it was exactly like the very first version of Netscape Navigator, so nobody should be taking that cheerleading fanboy seriously. Instead, read what the Opera devs are saying and think "well, do I want a browser like that?", cos the answer for me and many others is a resounding "no", as you can see by the many, many gripes on this very forum and Opera's plummeting usage stats on the desktop, except some people, it seems, are living in hope that Opera will evolve back into the feature-rich and customisable browser that made them use it over the competition in the first place. Those people are wasting their time IMO.
You're just another of the kind that doesn't even know the difference between market share and number of users and have no idea how Opera 12.x was making Opera lose users as shown in their quarterly reports.
It doesn't matter whether Opera 19 is objectively great or not, you'll ignore any points in denial anyway.
I never said Opera 15+ will become customizable/feature-packed in the same level of Opera 12, I'm saying it has already got a good base of features and we will get some useful new and old features specifically answering OP's examples (side tabs and "legacy" bookmarks which both are coming back).
My necessity was having simple notes synchronized then I used Opera Notes, no other browser offer that same functionality. Then I migrated to Google Keep, and with that the point of Panels died for me. I didn't use M2 / IRC / etc and I'm not claiming all these former features are coming back.I never said I liked Opera for its customizability, I repeat: I couldn't care less since the default setup was enough for me (I used to only tweak the startup setting, disable the Ctrl+TAB visual-last-active-tab-cycler and disable the plug-ins that got in my system through the necessity of other programs or bank sites). There was no necessity of moving/adding/removing buttons for me as I can control the browser with the default keyboard and mouse gestures, etc...
Opera got me for other details, like the ones I gave as examples above (Speed Dial, search with for selected text, shortcuts/gestures, Off-road, etc) that would require extensions in other browsers. Another example: its non-modal alert/dialog boxes it had long before Firefox (and Chrome's still modal). Something else on Firefox: I can't use Alt+Enter to open typed URLs/searches in new tab.Opera also got me by the way they respect truly open web standards...
The things that I miss now in Opera and for example the visual tabs tooltips I enjoyed aren't in any other browser out of the box either (or maybe Sleipnir has them? Again Sleipnir would present other trade-offs)... I just want to say that as you can see it's a matter of personal preferences instead of "Firefox is the best it's the solution to all problems".
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by LisandreL:
It's ok while they just show you the message. But if the message blocks all the site without an option to continue without changing «outdated browser»…
Well, now I saw rather few of such sites, but I guess their amount would increase.Well compatibility problems never ceased to pop in Opera-Presto.
Originally posted by LisandreL:
It's not a need but a desire.
Cause this cuted urls look dumb and still not informative.
In case of hiding all this unneeded technical details and show it user-friendly I like the Yandex.browser way.Hm... I don't have an opinion about that "Yandex way" (apart from the obvious duplicity since you can already mouse over the tabs to see their full title), at first it's a bit of a shock but I guess I don't really care since focusing it would give me the actual URL. In Opera we have the badge and domain highlighting, how do you check the page security in Yandex browser?
-
LisandreL last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
apart from the obvious duplicity
But, imho, it is still more informative, than showing me, so to say, search.php, without what am I actually searching.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
how do you check the page security in Yandex browser?
I do not really use it, so do not know match about it, but something like that: valid ssl, invalid ssl.
P.S. Feel like we got deep in off-topic there.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
It isn't even an issue for me... I really don't see this necessity. I mean, "" is no guarantee of security and the only other use which is copy works perfectly ok (if you copy the URL in the address field it comes with the protocol in your clipboard).
It's not (only) about security. A web browser is supposed to show the full address. It's one of the very basic features that must not be compromised. How about a wrist-watch without minute or hour hand?
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Opera 17 is (as you know) capable of quickly showing the full address. Exactly why, in practical terms (as opposed to mere dogma), is it required that this be the default behavior for every webpage that a user visits?
Developers need routinely to see precisely at what local page they are. Now, I personally am not a (serious) developer, but I browse local files often enough, and I honestly cannot imagine a situation when I would not want to see the exact address, locally or globally.
It's basic: I should know where I am. So why not make it precise? Why muddle it? Edit: What next? Hide urls in links, to protect us from knowing whether we want to click or not? The trend of "progress" is assumedly, "Whatever, just click it. You can always hit the back button." Except that the next trend could be to remove the back button...
Tell me please, why should any part of the address be hidden or even lowlighted (in practical terms, as opposed to mere dogma)?
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Opera 17 is (as you know) capable of quickly showing the full address.
No, it's not. It's completely and utterly incabable of ever showing the full address.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Exactly why, in practical terms (as opposed to mere dogma), is it required that this be the default behavior for every webpage that a user visits?
Why should a book have page numbers?
Originally posted by scratchspace:
How about a valid analogy? A "wrist-watch without minute or hour hand" does not perform the defining, essential function of a watch: to tell the time. A browser, on the other hand, unquestionably performs its defining, essential function regardless of whether it "show(s) the full address".
That's nonsense and you know it.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
In any event, I would ask, why should showing, as a default behavior, the full address of a local file—a file where security is not an issue—be regarded as a "must-have" feature of a browser for the typical (i.e., not a developer) user?
First think why it has been the default behaviour in the first place. Full urls have been gradually removed from our sight only recently. Why? I don't think you gave a valid answer.
My personal opposition to this "feature" is to think about its reasons. I see no valid reason. Apart from focusing, you gave no defence for why urls should be hidden or lowlighted, and in mentioning focusing, you implicitly conceded that in different cases different things need focus.
But notably, you didn't go further with this fantastic idea: What if urls in links were half-hidden (or "focused" as you say)? This way you would be safe from knowing what's behind the link and the world becomes even more wonderful for typical users. Only advanced developers need urls in links, so let's hide urls in links as per default. This has not been done yet, so let's say we are being innovative. Agree?
Originally posted by scratchspace:
The value of this focusing varies,
Indeed, the value varies, the reasons for different people also vary. Therefore, if you do this senseless thing at all, GIVE OPTIONS!!! In FF you can still set trimurls to false in about:config. When this option disappears, I will uninstall the whole thing and never look back.
In case of urls I visit, it is self-evident to me that I should know them to absolute exact precision. It's ridiculous that I even have to defend this position.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
. If you're trying to find a topic or other item in a nonfiction book, you go to either the table of contents or the index, and page numbers are essential to that process. If you're trying to find either a cited passage in a fiction book or the place where you last stopped reading (no cracks about bookmarks here, please!), again page numbers are essential. How can you possibly compare this page number function with the function of showing the full address, all in the same font, as the default behavior for every webpage?
How can you possibly think that urls are not essential to browsing the web? Please elaborate.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Huh? What's the basis for this assertion? I've done this myself.
Showing the full address involves four unintuitive steps:
1. Highlight the addressbar (click or Ctrl+L)
2. Copy (right click, copy or Ctrl+C)
3. Start Notepad or switch to Notepad (Alt+Tab or click on taskbar)
4. Paste (right click, paste or Ctrl+V).You're obviously referring to just the obnoxious first step which kind of shows the query string.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Oh, come on . . . this analogy is as defective as the wristwatch analogy. If you're trying to find a topic or other item in a nonfiction book, you go to either the table of contents or the index, and page numbers are essential to that process. If you're trying to find either a cited passage in a fiction book or the place where you last stopped reading (no cracks about bookmarks here, please!), again page numbers are essential. How can you possibly compare this page number function with the function of showing the full address, all in the same font, as the default behavior for every webpage?
Well, here's a thought for starters: quite literally page numbers.
Your requirement that the full address should be useful in all situations is silly at best. While you're reading a work of fiction or even something of a more academic nature, most of the time the page number is just a waste of ink. All the things you described are only sometimes useful to a minority of book users. They're definitely not essential then, are they?
Originally posted by scratchspace:
No, I certainly do not know it. Please elaborate.
Your elaboration on the usefulness of page numbers shows that you should know it. I have no idea why you're in denial.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by ersi:
In case of urls I visit, it is self-evident to me that I should know them to absolute exact precision. It's ridiculous that I even have to defend this position.
+1
I can see at a glance that I'm in topic 176something on page 1 rather than topic 125something on page 119. Which is not something necessarily immediately obvious if I switch to a page which is scrolled to someplace in the middle. Is the topic ID the most useful identifier of my location? Of course not, but it's a lot better than nothing, and not all query strings are made equal. Or to phrase that differently: just because the query string is useless on Google doesn't mean it's useless elsewhere.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by ersi:
How can you possibly think that urls are not essential to browsing the web? Please elaborate.
He didn't say that, he meant the need for seeing the full URL of every web page being visited all the time isn't essential.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
I can see at a glance that I'm in topic 176something on page 1 rather than topic 125something on page 119.
But why do you have the obsession of knowing you're in the page 119 of the topic 1257282 all the time via the URL parameters? Is that any useful?
Originally posted by ersi:
I see no valid reason. Apart from focusing, you gave no defence for why urls should be hidden or lowlighted
Increase readability of the main domain the user is connected to.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
I did not say that "urls are not essential to browsing the web" (whatever that might mean). Rather, I said that "showing the full address, all in the same font, as the default behavior for every webpage" is not essential.
I guess I can blame myself for not addressing this "same font" misunderstanding explicitly earlier, but I thought ersi's use of the word "lowlighting" did so sufficiently. But here it goes, explicitly: I have no problem whatsoever with highlighting the domain. But highlighting consists of italicizing, bolding, underlining, background color, bordering, bigger size, padding, etc. Highlighting by lowlighting the rest of the address is not what I'd call a typical understanding of the word "highlight".
Here's some proposals I wrote down back when Opera 11 introduced the horrible decision of hard-coded colors. You can ignore the stuff on the query string which is more of a "hey, how about some love for us advanced users?"
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
But why do you have the obsession of knowing you're in the page 119 of the topic 1257282 all the time via the URL parameters? Is that any useful?
Who do you have an obsession with defending an addressbar that doesn't even work with slightly different color schemes? Look, I'm just using this forum as an example because we're on it. It's more useful on e.g. the blogs on this very site. In any case, efficiency isn't terribly important on this site regardless because I basically just visit it for fun. Efficiency isn't terribly relevant, although that hardly means I want inefficiency. Because really, if you don't understand how it's useful that you're on page 6 instead of page 7 without having to bother scrolling down or focusing the addressbar then discussing this with you is fruitless.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by ersi:
I see no valid reason. Apart from focusing, you gave no defence for why urls should be hidden or lowlighted
Increase readability of the main domain the user is connected to.
That's not a defense for hiding things. That's an argument for highlighting the domain. Kind of like I just did with the word highlighting.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Because really, if you don't understand how it's useful that you're on page 6 instead of page 7 without having to bother scrolling down or focusing the addressbar then discussing this with you is fruitless.
I'm unable to see any use of knowing on which page number I'm here, but if you really want to know it pressing the End key will display it in the blog comments / forum pages "jumper" easily.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
That's not a defense for hiding things. That's an argument for highlighting the domain.
FWIW, it would be fine with me if the entire URL was shown, though I do prefer that the domain name be highlighted. I presume the purpose of hiding the tail-end portions of some URLs is to make it easier to read the main sections of the URL (for those who need to do that).
Adding more to what scratchspace said, maybe actual highlighting wouldn't look very good or bold wouldn't stand out from the regular text as lowlighting the rest of the URL does? Italics decrease readability.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
The clear implication of your position here is not simply that the browser should show the full address by default but that users should know—not just have access to, but know—the complete URL of each and every webpage that they visit.
Not every user, but certainly myself, being a moderately precise man that I am.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
I did not say that "urls are not essential to browsing the web" (whatever that might mean). Rather, I said that "showing the full address, all in the same font, as the default behavior for every webpage" is not essential.
When you think it's alright to fool around with the url in web address field, it's very odd to withhold options for users to fool around some more.
And you still provided no indication how it is practical to "focus" the urls, while at the same time you demand me to prove the practicality of the full url.
As Frenzie showed, urls have the same function as page numbers. Imagine your bookmarks and history with "focused" imprecise urls, recoverable only when you copy and paste them to Notepad. How do you edit your bookmarks? How do you review the visited pages?
Originally posted by scratchspace:
You tell me what the problem—the practical problem—would be with that. If there is a practical problem with it, well, then I might object to it.
Each unique document on the web is referred to by url. When the url is not precise, you don't know if you are on the same exact page or not. This is the very foundation of web browsing: You visit web addresses. Just like reading a book: you read the pages. The book's system is linear succession. The web's system is links cross-referring to the pages.
Now the practical problem: The links ARE urls. The url is every link's essence. Everything else about links is inessential. Take the url away and you are not browsing any more. You are just clicking around randomly, never knowing where you are going and not knowing where you came from. It's like reading a book not in succession, but beginning from the middle, then looking here and there randomly, and not paying attention to what you are missing in the process. Is this an impractical problem?
Now your turn. Tell how it is practical to "focus" urls and how it is impractical to see the complete url. Doesn't it take time and effort from the dev team to mangle urls, with the danger of having to fix it when they do it wrong? Why not leave it alone?
I also noticed this little thing:
Originally posted by scratchspace:
A browser, on the other hand, unquestionably performs its defining, essential function regardless of whether it "show(s) the full address".
What on earth is a web browser's essential function? To me it's visiting web addresses, a.k.a. urls. To you?
By the way, urls are, by definition, either correct and precise or not. "Fullness" is actually changing the topic. Urls must be correct and I have to be able to verify the correctness before I click or press enter. And since web browser is the tool to visit web addresses for me, this task of verifying urls should not be too difficult. There's something very wrong going on when very basic tasks are being made difficult and it's called "progress".
Edit:
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Adding more to what scratchspace said, maybe actual highlighting wouldn't look very good or bold wouldn't stand out from the regular text as lowlighting the rest of the URL does? Italics decrease readability.
Sounds like more arguments for more options. Why muddle and mangle urls at all when it opens a can of worms? But when you insist on doing it, why not do it properly with all the necessary options to make it really practical, including the self-evident option to opt out from muddling, to keep urls as they are.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
"Notepad"? Now that would be a bit much. But, no, you never have to leave the address bar. You paste it right there. This may be "unintuitive", but once you know it, it's easy and can be executed in all of three seconds.
Okay, so it involves "merely" three extra steps on top of just glancing over. But surely you realize that I don't exclusively visit websites with which I already am familiar? Or that I've already would've had to do that multiple times just while I was typing this?
Originally posted by scratchspace:
You've misrepresented (unintentionally) my position. I did not say "page numbers are essential to the reading of the book"; I said "If you're trying to find a topic or other item in a nonfiction book, you go to either the table of contents or the index, and page numbers are essential to that process." But, hey, if it makes you happy, I'll concede that page numbers are not "essential" for many or even most readers. But your argument here is a specious one and so that's really beside the point. Why? Because (1) the full URL is, as I've demonstrated, easily accessible in Opera 17 and (2) the elimination of page numbers from books would significantly impair the functionality of many nonfiction books for many readers (if only academic readers, of which there are many, as I'm sure you know).
My argument is not, of course, that page numbers should be removed. Hiding the query string and the hash most certainly impairs functionality, oftentimes of the exact same kind as hiding the page numbers would. If nothing else, you should get from this how your argument about URLs sounds to me. Because I've not misrepresented your position, merely transplanted it on a subject matter you somehow see as different. Yet websites are just a funky form of books that occasionally leaf through themselves thanks to hyperlinks. But ironically, knowing something like a page number can be all the more important on a website because there's no other way to tell how far in you are.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
I'm unable to see any use of knowing on which page number I'm here, but if you really want to know it pressing the End key will display it in the blog comments / forum pages "jumper" easily.
That's worse than focusing the addressbar, although I suppose I could easily write a bookmarklet that jumped to the end of the page if I wasn't there and back to where I came from if at the end of the page. But why should I have to just for what I used to be able to do with a quick glance?
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Adding more to what scratchspace said, maybe actual highlighting wouldn't look very good or bold wouldn't stand out from the regular text as lowlighting the rest of the URL does? Italics decrease readability.
Hard-coded gray text looks pretty bad and decreases readability. Hiding text eliminates its readability.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
I'm not certain of what Frenzie had in mind, but to be clear, when I said "highlighting", I did not mean that the font of the domain name should actually be boldfaced (or modified in any other way). I meant only that the domain name should be more prominent than the other elements of the URL.
That's right. There are many ways of highlighting something. However, the bold thing depends on the OS. On Windows that's true; on Mac and usually on Linux it's not.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Frenzie, regarding a "misunderstanding", I'm not sure that I'm following you. Note that ersi said this: "why should any part of the address be hidden or even lowlighted"? Hence, my choice of wording. And, to be clear, I would stand by my statement even with the wording "all in the same font" omitted.
I don't believe that ersi said anything against highlighting. But as I said at the beginning of this message, I don't know when I'm going to need the query string. Of course one doesn't need to see the full URL at all times, even users like ersi and I. But we don't know in advance when we do and when we don't need to see it, now do we?
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Originally posted by ersi:
As Frenzie showed, urls have the same function as page numbers. Imagine your bookmarks and history with "focused" imprecise urls, recoverable only when you copy and paste them to Notepad. How do you edit your bookmarks?
You edit them in the "Edit bookmark" dialogue. I don't understand why you're asking this—have you actually installed and used Opera 17?
He said imagine.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by ersi:
Urls must be correct and I have to be able to verify the correctness before I click or press enter.
That's what the status bar is for. As for pressing Enter in that case you obviously already know whether the URL is right or not because you followed it from your bookmarks or pasted the URL yourself and the address field will retain the focus and the text in regular font you can read. In the case of following a hardcoded link from a external app that don't show its target then URL would be unavoidable anyway.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
That's worse than focusing the addressbar, although I suppose I could easily write a bookmarklet that jumped to the end of the page if I wasn't there and back to where I came from if at the end of the page. But why should I have to just for what I used to be able to do with a quick glance?
Why do you need to know the page number when the page is completely functional (and its link is easily accessible - F8 - and easily copyable so you can share or do anything else with it), that's what you don't answer.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Hard-coded gray text looks pretty bad and decreases readability. Hiding text eliminates its readability.
Lowlighting and hiding the end of the URL while keeping the domain in black increases the readability and the sense of importance *of the main domain*. That's what users are being given and informed about.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Why do you need to know the page number when the page is completely functional (and its link is easily accessible - F8 - and easily copyable so you can share or do anything else with it), that's what you don't answer.
Are you seriously asking why I might care to know the difference between page 1 and page 2 of a document without actually having to skim through whatever happens to be on my screen? But perhaps here's what you don't understand: I might have page 1 and 2 open simultaneously.* And I might have been looking at one or more other documents for a bit before returning to these other pages. The page title therefore is just not enough, because that's twice the same thing. You would have me waste my time skimming through or focusing the addressbar. Remember, a website is like a book, but not quite. I don't automatically know more or less where I am because of where I flipped the page to. I do more with my browser than occasionally frivolously browsing through this forum in my spare time, although even then I don't appreciate the lack of such basic navigational aids. My spare time is also limited.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Lowlighting and hiding the end of the URL while keeping the domain in black increases the readability and the sense of importance *of the main domain*. That's what users are being given and informed about.
It really doesn't. It barely stands out, notwithstanding the gray text's horrible UX.
* I keep talking about pages to keep things simple, but of course there's far more involved. Chapter headings, language, search strings, etc.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by scratchspace:
But notwithstanding your wording "urls I visit", you have clearly been discussing this matter not as one of personal preferences but rather as a matter of proper browser design. If you would now would like to say that your point concerning the showing or not showing of the full URL is merely a matter of your personal preference, fine, but that's not what you've been saying.
If it were a matter of my own personal preference, I would not even have spoken. The thing is that url is a basic web standard, an essential element to it. You said it's not. Or, the way you put it, "not as essential as page numbers in a book". Sorry, but urls really are more essential than page numbers in a book. Below I'll show how.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Originally posted by ersi:
As Frenzie showed, urls have the same function as page numbers. Imagine your bookmarks and history with "focused" imprecise urls, recoverable only when you copy and paste them to Notepad. How do you edit your bookmarks?
You edit them in the "Edit bookmark" dialogue. I don't understand why you're asking this—have you actually installed and used Opera 17?
You missed a little important detail: I said "imagine". You are here defending the mangling of urls in the address field. Imagine, how you would defend if urls were mangled in bookmark items. Ask yourself: With an imprecise url, is it really still a bookmark?
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Whoaaaa . . . Nobody said anything about "tak(ing) the URL away". The issue that you raised was that of "half-hidden" link URLs, that is, truncated link URLs, as a parallel to the truncation of address bar URLs.
It just occurred to me that there is one legitimate case for truncating urls - namely, when there's not enough space on the screen. But the current case is far from it. What is going on right now is embellished with arguments like "hide irrelevant information" or "protect you", i.e. somebody else is doing the thinking for you, in this case deciding for you what you should see or not. It's called censorship. Read the article I linked above close tot he beginning of the thread. My arguments are against that.
Apart from it being censorship, it's actually the case on the web that urls are essential and web browsing means visiting web addresses. Now I'll show how.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Originally posted by ersi:
Originally posted by scratchspace:
A browser, on the other hand, unquestionably performs its defining, essential function regardless of whether it "show(s) the full address".
What on earth is a browser's essential function? To me it's visiting web addresses, a.k.a. urls. To you?
It's visiting webpages. As for your assertion that the essential function is "visiting web addresses, a.k.a. urls", I can't believe that you're saying this.
This is a subtle but crucial difference now. Yes, the web consists of pages, but the pages are identified by urls. To bring up the book analogy again, are the book's author and title irrelevant when you are looking for a book to read?
Url is to webpages what ISBN is to books. Without url you won't even get to your first webpage, so, even though for you it may seem that the browser's essential function is to visit webpages, visiting webpages cannot even begin without a url. Therefore I named the browser's essential function more precisely.
Moreover, there are other files on the web, files to download, file lists on servers to browse, dead links, etc. By url I can often tell what kind of operation to expect from the browser when I click or enter it.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
Originally posted by ersi:
By the way, urls are, by definition, either correct and precise or not. "Fullness" is actually changing the topic.
No, actually it's not; it's only a question of what is displayed in the address bar. The page itself—do I actually have to say this?—is not affected.
Let's repeat it so it will be very clear: You won't see any page at all in the browser if the url is incorrect. Or you may be looking at the wrong page, if the browser is hiding the url from you. The page may be there, but you can't access it without knowing the url and entering it precisely to the point. This is rather essential and elementary feedback from the browser, has been there all along. Muddling this functionality is certainly non-standard, if not outright criminal.
Originally posted by scratchspace:
This is all from me, guys!
See you tomorrow.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by ersi:
Urls must be correct and I have to be able to verify the correctness before I click or press enter.
That's what the status bar is for.
Indeed, status bar is for that. Now, would you be able to articulate a defence for mangling the url on the status bar as eloquently as you have in case of address field?
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
As for pressing Enter in that case you obviously already know whether the URL is right or not because you followed it from your bookmarks or pasted the URL yourself and the address field will retain the focus and the text in regular font you can read.
There's more to it. I often enough extract urls from links, for example when noticing that the url is evidently malformed and needs editing to take me to the right place, or when I need to go to a slightly different destination than the url. For this task, the status bar is not enough. The most obvious place for this task is the address field. This is why I care a lot what is going on there.
I need precise feedback of the address where I stand. Something less than full exact url on the address field makes the software in question something less than a browser. There is more stuff on the web than just webpages and it's often important to know it before clicking or pressing enter.
