Bug 1389229 Comment 18 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #16)
> > Do you know of any websites where this approach would deduplicate too much?
> 
> Arguably any site where there's just a bunch of in-page anchors, e.g. CSS spec documents.

I guess Google Docs -- the motivating site here -- is also in this^ category (site with a bunch of in-page anchors)..  The special things about Google Docs here are that (a) its fragment IDs are gibberish rather than human-readable, which means users can't meaningfully distinguish among them in the list of Firefox Suggest suggestions; and (b) users inadvertently "visit" its links by simply moving the cursor through the document (which makes Google Docs update the URLbar to reflect your current heading, and which makes you inadvertently get a bunch of history entries without actually clicking any links or realizing that your'e navigating).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's tractable to programmatically differentiate between a site like Google Docs vs. a site like drafts.csswg.org, in terms of fragments being something the user might care about or might want deduplicated. If we can think of a way, though, that's great. :)

In my case in my duplicate bug 1753747, I think the thing that prompted me to file was that the flood of history-entries drowned out "Switch to tab" for me (for a Google Doc that I actually had open in a tab).
(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #16)
> > Do you know of any websites where this approach would deduplicate too much?
> 
> Arguably any site where there's just a bunch of in-page anchors, e.g. CSS spec documents.

I guess Google Docs -- the motivating site here -- is also in this^ category (site with a bunch of in-page anchors)..  The special things about Google Docs here are that (a) its fragment IDs are gibberish rather than human-readable, which means users can't meaningfully distinguish among them in the list of Firefox Suggest suggestions; and (b) users inadvertently "visit" its links by simply moving the cursor through the document (which makes Google Docs update the URLbar to reflect your current heading, and which makes you inadvertently get a bunch of history entries without actually clicking any links or realizing that your'e navigating).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's tractable to programmatically differentiate between a site like Google Docs vs. a site like drafts.csswg.org, in terms of fragments being something the user might care about or might want deduplicated. If we can think of a way, though, that's great. :)

In my case in my duplicate bug 1753747, I think the thing that prompted me to file was that the flood of history-entries drowned out "Switch to tab" for me and prevented that from showing up (for a Google Doc that I actually had open in a tab).

Back to Bug 1389229 Comment 18