The Web is about statelessness and hyperlinking, so I'll note that:
1) Javascript breaks stateless linking.
2) Mobile versions and browser detection breaks stateless linking.
3) Censorship headers like Prefer:Safe, and censorship in general, breaks stateless linking.
And the list goes on. Some state and inability to link is inevitable, but this is not.
Mozilla: please get back on track for a strong/stateless and cite-able web. Headers are not the place to build a censorship "UX."
Also, "safety"? That's not helping. Almost no one uses NetNanny, or similar software and, while I'd like to think we've grown as a species, even if we haven't, it doesn't make sense to force something most Web surfers have already rejected back down their throats. (And it is forcing them, even if it's optional. The social implications of even "optional" headers will be with us for a very long time.)
A browser especially should strive to be neutral, unless you want to start getting requests from governments and industry to block sites directly in the browser. Google handles a million or more every day and they are just and index list... You can't expect a different fate without discarding neutrality as a core principal.
Cite-ability requires availability, and censorship - the Web-equivalent of a frontal lobotomy - contradicts the very essence of your product. I'm starting to feel ashamed to be using a browser made by an organization that doesn't understand that.
1) Javascript breaks stateless linking.
2) Mobile versions and browser detection breaks stateless linking.
3) Censorship headers like Prefer:Safe, and censorship in general, breaks stateless linking.
And the list goes on. Some state and inability to link is inevitable, but this is not.
Mozilla: please get back on track for a strong/stateless and cite-able web. Headers are not the place to build a censorship "UX."
Also, "safety"? That's not helping. Almost no one uses NetNanny, or similar software and, while I'd like to think we've grown as a species, even if we haven't, it doesn't make sense to force something most Web surfers have already rejected back down their throats. (And it is forcing them, even if it's optional. The social implications of even "optional" headers will be with us for a very long time.)
A browser especially should strive to be neutral, unless you want to start getting requests from governments and industry to block sites directly in the browser. Google handles a million or more every day and they are just and index list... You can't expect a different fate without discarding neutrality as a core principal.
Cite-ability requires availability, and censorship - the Web-equivalent of a frontal lobotomy - contradicts the very essence of your product. I'm starting to feel ashamed to be using a browser made by an organization that doesn't understand that.