> And, let's not forget, many browsers will actually recommend to the > user not to go to a site unless it's an https url.
Oh, that's _really_ obnoxious. > If you try to go to a url that isn't https, (for instance), chrome > tells you you shouldn't do it, because the site isn't secure. Without, of course, giving any hint of "secure against what?". Anyone who speaks of something being "secure" or "insecure" without being able to answer the question "against what?" either doesn't know what they're talking about or hopes their listener doesn't. > Opera, brave, and other browsers I've used do the same thing, just > not to the extent google chrome does. Good reason to avoid Chrome. The Firefox I use at work does not have any such foolishness; if it did I would be filing a bug report and looking for an alternative. It doesn't even _recognize_ ftp://, which is itself a pretty major failing. It's bad enough I'm actually considering trying to set up a build machine with the whole passel of dependencies so I can create civilized builds of Firefox (or Chromium or whatever). It wouldn't be easy, but each new release of Firefox, Chromium, pretty much everything, goes further and further in the "when we want your opinion we'll give it to you" direction. > So, it's not really the fault of the web hosting folks, it's really > the fault of the various browsers out there that insist on https urls > even if you aren't doing a single solitary thing that needs it. I'd lay the fault at the door of each of those. If the Web had collectively given such browsers the middle finger, that change would have been rolled back post-haste - but I suspect the browsers didn't make that change until most of the Web had already switched. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
