Chrome 13(googlesystem.blogspot.com)
googlesystem.blogspot.com
Chrome 13
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/08/chrome-13.html
19 comments
There is also introduced css3 bugs on chrome 12 lion (corrected in v13), backface-visibility stopped working, and this was working on snow leopard (v12)
The only problems I've had with Chrome 12 were random pages crashing (especially on, coincidentally, google.com).
This was on Chrome 12 on OSX 10.7 I'll have to see how 13 behaves.
This was on Chrome 12 on OSX 10.7 I'll have to see how 13 behaves.
13 is a really high version number. One thing I love about chrome is how silent the updates are. Other browsers tend to nag you about downloading the latest version, running an installer, etc..
Chrome updates much more silently + in the background, which is one of the many reasons it's my favorite browser.
Chrome updates much more silently + in the background, which is one of the many reasons it's my favorite browser.
I love Chrome, but it's almost unusable on Lion for me at the moment. Full screen support isn't very good, it doesn't work with desktop/spaces and it's felt more unreliable than in the past (though that's anecdotal).
How is it unusable for you? I'm on Lion too, and I find Chrome to behave pretty much the same as it did on Snow Leopard.
Edit: typo.
Edit: typo.
I get that dark blue "Aw, Snap" page quite a bit since upgrading to Lion.
I see prefetching of doom again. I hope they have thought about the obvious problem this can cause when the browser spiders all the links on the page:
People using the GET verb for deletions. Bad practice but common as dirt.
Ouch!
People using the GET verb for deletions. Bad practice but common as dirt.
Ouch!
The article suggests that the page author has to explicitly request prerendering of a link with a "rel" attribute, possibly to avoid this problem.
That makes sense, but it raised a question on my mind: What about malicious sites? Could this be used to do something without the user knowing?
One could mark a link as prefetch and that URL would be downloaded without prompting the user. Does that impose a genuine threat, or is that something that malicious sites can already do?
One could mark a link as prefetch and that URL would be downloaded without prompting the user. Does that impose a genuine threat, or is that something that malicious sites can already do?
This can already be done by using a script or img tag load an arbitrary URL.
And if you have a well designed web app that can handle the extra volume, you can prefetch everything and get amazing response times.
Ack. Further research confirms your information:
http://code.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/prerender.html
Thanks for the heads up :)
http://code.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/prerender.html
Thanks for the heads up :)
Bust if you read the next section...
"Even if you do not proactively trigger prerendering yourself, it is still possible that another site will instruct Chrome to prerender your site. If your page is being prerendered, it may or may not ever be shown to the user (depending on if the user clicks the link)"
I posted similar concerns in a thread here yesterday which got little response.
"Even if you do not proactively trigger prerendering yourself, it is still possible that another site will instruct Chrome to prerender your site. If your page is being prerendered, it may or may not ever be shown to the user (depending on if the user clicks the link)"
I posted similar concerns in a thread here yesterday which got little response.
Oh great - so non-deterministic behaviour adopted by the browser from instructions elsewhere. That's not good. Bring on the exploits!
Good job I've got a low IQ and use IE9 :)
Good job I've got a low IQ and use IE9 :)
Maybe it's time for me to give Chrome another go, but it's got a high bar to beat.