New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 912301 link

Starred by 1 user

Issue metadata

Status: Assigned
Owner:
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Linux , Windows , Chrome , Mac
Pri: 3
Type: Bug
Team-Security-UX



Sign in to add a comment

Interstitial URL text-wrapping not right

Project Member Reported by emilyschechter@chromium.org, Dec 5

Issue description

See screenshot from ainslie@: https://screenshot.googleplex.com/TXhGuRXeAuS.png

I'll let him add more details!

Chrome Version: (copy from chrome://version)
OS: (e.g. Win10, MacOS 10.12, etc...)

What steps will reproduce the problem?
(1)
(2)
(3)

What is the expected result?

What happens instead?



Please use labels and text to provide additional information.

If this is a regression (i.e., worked before), please consider using the
bisect tool (https://www.chromium.org/developers/bisect-builds-py) to help
us identify the root cause and more rapidly triage the issue.

For graphics-related bugs, please copy/paste the contents of the about:gpu
page at the end of this report.


 
Cc: ainslie@chromium.org
Cc: edwardjung@chromium.org maxwalker@chromium.org
My suggestion (for Max and Edward) is to think about whether we could use a different type of wrapping to break extra long URLs differently so that overall layout stays balanced. WDYT? 

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/overflow-wrap

The example you show is unfortunate. The first hyphen after the c will be the first place it will break, the CSS you linked to deals specifically with whole words without punctuation. For ultra long URLs, the wrapping does currently happen in the word.

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 15.52.20.png
56.5 KB View Download
Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 15.52.28.png
56.4 KB View Download
I see :/ Maybe we could consider using eTLD+1 to help avoid some of the super long cases? Happy to defer to your judgement. 
Cc: emilyschechter@chromium.org
In phishing scenarios attackers often use subdomains to distract people and to obfuscate the eTLD+1. So hiding subdomains could be helpful. 

I wonder whether it could be hurtful for sites with subdomain-specific SSL errors. For example, example.com could have a certificate error on xyz.example.com, while all other subdomains are fine. The interstitial would then give the impression that all of example.com is not secure.
Good point Max, this could cause issues. I defer to Emily's judgement as whether we would want to do this.
Owner: emilyschechter@chromium.org
Status: Assigned (was: Untriaged)
Assigning to emilyschechter for opinions, I share the concern in #5 about different subdomains having the same URL displayed in the interstitial (e.g. expired.badssl.com vs wrong-host.badssl.com), but I can be convinced otherwise since the full URL still shows in the omnibox. In any case, I'm happy to take the implementation of this, so feel free to toss this back to me. 

Sign in to add a comment