Timeline for Network-wide HTTPS: It's time
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2017 at 13:58 | comment | added | Nick Craver StaffMod | @programmer5000 We had relative links...they actually made the transition much more painful due to: what's relative? what's not? what's http? what's not? what has a valid cert? what doesn't? JS complications in checks, the same paths being unusuable in other contexts (e.g. emails and mobile apps). There are many downsides - I wouldn't advise that intermediate step for anyone else after doing it ourselves :) For a simple website (e.g. only a website), it can be a net positive, but with other pieces, it gets pretty complicated fast. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 13:53 | comment | added | user338745 | @nick This was just a suggestion for sites that are being built with http for now but will move to https, to ensure a smooth transition. For many sites (such as my own, https://programmer500.com) https was a long term goal but not achievable immediately. I definitely support https. | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 6:54 | history | edited | user134589 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added script |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 11:20 | comment | added | Kaiido | I would extend it to all links to sites like lorempixel.com, often used for HTML and CSS snippets. But being able to do gUM in snippets for chrome is a good thing ;-) | |
| Mar 14, 2017 at 23:33 | comment | added | jduncanator | You also have the potential issue of the site being linked to not supporting SSL at all. Rewriting all HTTP URLs to HTTPS would break all HTTP links that do not support HTTPS. | |
| Mar 14, 2017 at 22:37 | comment | added | Umur Kontacı | If you are on https://example.com and there's a content at //example.com/*, doesn't it use http/2 either way? | |
| Mar 14, 2017 at 20:35 | comment | added | Nick Craver StaffMod | @gman a) they're harder to deal with - there's a lot of code and assumptions that are harder, and b) in a http:// context, they won't be delivered over HTTP/2, which is faster. | |
| Mar 14, 2017 at 15:08 | comment | added | user134589 | @NickCraver, what's the difference? I thought using // means "use the same protocol as the page. The browser will add https: to the request. So what's the important difference (not that I have anything against using https:// instead of just // it's just AFAICT the result for SO will be the same. | |
| Mar 14, 2017 at 1:51 | comment | added | Nick Craver StaffMod | @programmer5000 it's really better to use https://, which is HTTP/2 and faster in most cases there. | |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 21:02 | comment | added | user338745 | You should use protocol-inferred urls: //cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.js | |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 14:09 | comment | added | Nick Craver StaffMod | For the moment, that only happens when hitting the "run code snippet" button (and not load)...we still have to figure out long-term on mixed content there. | |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 8:40 | history | edited | user134589 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 3 characters in body |
| Mar 13, 2017 at 7:23 | history | answered | user134589 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |