On Jun 13, 2015 4:28 AM, "Michael Catanzaro" <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 15:49 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> But that's not even right. Suppose you have a captive portal that
> wants you to log in via your Google account. It can send you do
>
https://accounts.google.com, and your browser can verify the
> certificate and show you an indication that the connection is secure.
> Then you really can safely enter your password.
Hmmm, I didn't realize legitimate portals might take you to the public
Internet.
I think I've seen this in airports and in some hotel chains.
It'd be nice to not show
http://www.gnome.org (the test URL we load, expecting to be hijacked)
if the portal decides not to redirect you to a new URI (not sure how
common that is), but I think we will have to or we can't fix this....
It could be
http://generic-network-login.org or something like that.
> I think the UI should look like a real browser except that it should
> clearly indicate that it's a "Log in to wireless network" browser in
> addition to showing a standard URL bar.
>
>
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749197
Can you please CC me on that bug? I didn't know GNOME Bugzilla even had
private bugs. :D
Done. I don't think I'm the one who made it private.
> > FWIW the tech used for GNOME apps that need a web view is
> > WebKitGTK+.
>
> Can that provide real chrome?
The web view is a GtkWidget: you pack it like any other GtkWidget into
your hierarchy, and put your own chrome around it. In this case, a URL
bar would not make any sense since we don't want the user changing the
URL; we'll probably want to display an unmodifiable URL alongside a
security indicator.
I guess the reason to keep it read-only is to prevent people from using it
like a real browser.
--Andy