4 ms·

Long URL Please: URL "unshortener" extension for Firefox

26 points by idm 17y ago

idm 17y ago
If you're bothered by HN commenters who use URL shortening services, then this is the extension for you. Disclaimer: I didn't write this; I'm just sharing it to ease the pain.
- derefr 17y ago
  I believe those HN users are annoyed that their paragraphs are taken over by 200-character URL strings, when they should be at most parenthetical to the discussion at hand--they are references to further reading, after all. Why does HN not allow titled links? If it's a matter of the possible syntax interfering with normal discourse, Markdown's footnote-style "reference link" specifications[1] are very unobtrusive and degrade gracefully (in fact, you're seeing the degraded version of a [modified] one in this very post!) [1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link
  - mattyb 17y ago
    So you know, URIs in comments are displayed in truncated form like so: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-process/#internals-release-process http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-proce...
    - derefr 17y ago
      Ooh, forgot about that. :) Still doesn't help with the URL text interrupting the flow of prose, though. What's so wrong with having to hover over links to find out where they go?
pyre 17y ago
Why exactly does this need to be a full-on Firefox extension rather than a GreaseMonkey script? As a GreaseMonkey script users can use it on multiple browsers...
- idm 17y ago
  Actually, there's a bookmarklet for non-firefox users. Check out the home page for the project: http://www.longurlplease.com/ http://www.longurlplease.com/ Still, I think you're on to something; Greasemonkey might be the best of all worlds.
  - redorb 17y ago
    I don't think greasemonkey is as easy for my grandmother as a plugin - yeah I know my grandmother might not care about seeing the long url (or know what one is) but the premise is the same FF plugins are easier than greasemonkey... for the average user
    - blasdel 17y ago
      You have to restart Firefox to install / enable / disable extensions -- with Greasemonkey you only have to do that once. You also don't have to deal with addons.mozilla.org and their wanky policies.
- jfarmer 17y ago
  Who needs C when you have assembly?
  - pyre 17y ago
    Poor analogy. Assembly is a magnitude 'harder' than C and they are different languages. Firefox extensions are written in XUL which is Javascript+XML last I checked. GreaseMonkey scripts are also written in Javascript. My point was that this is a 'simple' hack and by keeping the solution simple (i.e. a GreaseMonkey script) users of multiple browsers can benefit. Claiming that writing for GreaseMonkey instead of writing for the Firefox Extension 'Framework' is the same as going from C back to ASM is disingenuous (and from my point of view a straw-man). {edit} Personally for 'simple' things like this that just modify the display of the page and don't require significant user interaction (i.e. a preferences pane) I don't feel like there is a need to create a Firefox extension. There are obviously instances were Firefox Extensions are the correct option, especially when you're talking about modifying the behavior of Firefox (like the MAFF extension or the one that tells you Firefox to also save the stylesheets when saving the 'Complete Webpage'), but things like "replace all the URLs on the page with X" or "click on the image to expand it inline instead of opening up the larger image in a new tab/window" are more suited to a GreaseMonkey script (especially since a wider userbase can take advantage of them) IMO. {/edit}
benhoyt 17y ago
I see he's using Ajax to call his API to unshorten the URL. This is fine, but wouldn't it be faster (and less load on his server) if the JavaScript tried to follow the link directly, and looked at the Location header in the response? Or can't you do this using JavaScript?
- idm 17y ago
  Personally, I'd rather his server checked it out, rather than leaking my IP all over the place, potentially making requests to untrusted servers.
- aston 17y ago
  Cross-domain ajax technically doesn't exist, and when it does (via hacks), the target domain sorta needs to know it's responding to a hackified remote javascript request. edit: This might've been relevant if we weren't discussing an add-on. Nevermind...

26 points by idm 17y ago

idm 17y ago

If you're bothered by HN commenters who use URL shortening services, then this is the extension for you. Disclaimer: I didn't write this; I'm just sharing it to ease the pain.

derefr 17y ago
I believe those HN users are annoyed that their paragraphs are taken over by 200-character URL strings, when they should be at most parenthetical to the discussion at hand--they are references to further reading, after all. Why does HN not allow titled links? If it's a matter of the possible syntax interfering with normal discourse, Markdown's footnote-style "reference link" specifications[1] are very unobtrusive and degrade gracefully (in fact, you're seeing the degraded version of a [modified] one in this very post!) [1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link
- mattyb 17y ago
  So you know, URIs in comments are displayed in truncated form like so: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-process/#internals-release-process http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-proce...
  - derefr 17y ago
    Ooh, forgot about that. :) Still doesn't help with the URL text interrupting the flow of prose, though. What's so wrong with having to hover over links to find out where they go?

pyre 17y ago

Why exactly does this need to be a full-on Firefox extension rather than a GreaseMonkey script? As a GreaseMonkey script users can use it on multiple browsers...

idm 17y ago
Actually, there's a bookmarklet for non-firefox users. Check out the home page for the project: http://www.longurlplease.com/ http://www.longurlplease.com/ Still, I think you're on to something; Greasemonkey might be the best of all worlds.
- redorb 17y ago
  I don't think greasemonkey is as easy for my grandmother as a plugin - yeah I know my grandmother might not care about seeing the long url (or know what one is) but the premise is the same FF plugins are easier than greasemonkey... for the average user
  - blasdel 17y ago
    You have to restart Firefox to install / enable / disable extensions -- with Greasemonkey you only have to do that once. You also don't have to deal with addons.mozilla.org and their wanky policies.
jfarmer 17y ago
Who needs C when you have assembly?
- pyre 17y ago
  Poor analogy. Assembly is a magnitude 'harder' than C and they are different languages. Firefox extensions are written in XUL which is Javascript+XML last I checked. GreaseMonkey scripts are also written in Javascript. My point was that this is a 'simple' hack and by keeping the solution simple (i.e. a GreaseMonkey script) users of multiple browsers can benefit. Claiming that writing for GreaseMonkey instead of writing for the Firefox Extension 'Framework' is the same as going from C back to ASM is disingenuous (and from my point of view a straw-man). {edit} Personally for 'simple' things like this that just modify the display of the page and don't require significant user interaction (i.e. a preferences pane) I don't feel like there is a need to create a Firefox extension. There are obviously instances were Firefox Extensions are the correct option, especially when you're talking about modifying the behavior of Firefox (like the MAFF extension or the one that tells you Firefox to also save the stylesheets when saving the 'Complete Webpage'), but things like "replace all the URLs on the page with X" or "click on the image to expand it inline instead of opening up the larger image in a new tab/window" are more suited to a GreaseMonkey script (especially since a wider userbase can take advantage of them) IMO. {/edit}

benhoyt 17y ago

I see he's using Ajax to call his API to unshorten the URL. This is fine, but wouldn't it be faster (and less load on his server) if the JavaScript tried to follow the link directly, and looked at the Location header in the response? Or can't you do this using JavaScript?

idm 17y ago
Personally, I'd rather his server checked it out, rather than leaking my IP all over the place, potentially making requests to untrusted servers.
aston 17y ago
Cross-domain ajax technically doesn't exist, and when it does (via hacks), the target domain sorta needs to know it's responding to a hackified remote javascript request. edit: This might've been relevant if we weren't discussing an add-on. Nevermind...