SAFE URL: "safe://" cross browser support revisited!

[happybeing]

@TylerAbeoJordan

EDIT again: I must partially retract my view that “SAFE:” addresses will not end up being sent out to meta-data collectors (if an unrecognized protocol) … it turns out that most browsers by default now dump unrecognized strings to search engines!!! Holy moly, what a security breach. Anyway, this can be disabled (and should be!)

Important point, I hadn’t thought of this. We need to sit down and consider the implications of different methods of browser support and their implications.

I think it’s just too valuable for ease of use and mass adoption to not support existing browsers, and I can’t see how we can mitigate this - except to a small degree, by ensuring that all SAFE URLs behave like a normal URL when using a browser that doesn’t understand them! I refer of course to the following suggestion (maybe I should not have split the topics):

SAFE URL: use a real internet domain such as safenetwork.net

I have a new idea for an alternative to “safe:” for helping browsers with a SAFEnetwork add-on, to access SAFE URLs. This follows on from the discussion about URL handling by the safe browser plugin, where we were suggesting ways to deal with the problem that not all browsers can intercept the original idea of using “safe:” instead of “http:” @neo and others made some good suggestions such as in the following post (refer back to see the other ideas floated)… During the discussion, I liked th…

I think we should revisit this once we’ve thrashed out the options a bit more. Then look at the pros and cons again.