GNU bug report logs - #69232
30.0.50; [PATCH] EWW history navigation gets caught in a loop

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 69232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#69232: 30.0.50; [PATCH] EWW history navigation gets caught in a loop
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:04:35 +0200

> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:18:47 -0800
> Cc: 69232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
> 
> On 2/22/2024 5:22 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:55:49 -0800
> >> Cc: 69232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
> >>
> >> On 2/19/2024 4:12 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure this is a bug fix, and I think this behavior change does
> >>> need a NEWS entry.
> >>
> >> Ok, I added one.
> > 
> > Thanks, but I'm afraid it's somewhat confusing:
> > 
> >> +*** History navigation in EWW now works like other browsers.
> >> +Previously, when navigating back and forward through page history in
> >> +EWW, new history entries could get added to the history list.  Now, when
> >> +navigating through history, EWW preserves the history list and only
> >> +displays the relevant history entry.
> > 
> > This doesn't really explain the nature of the change in behavior.
> > AFAIU, the previous behavior was that going back in browsing history
> > could add the old entries to the history instead of removing them; now
> > going back will _never_ add entries to the history.  Isn't that so?
> 
> In other browsers, you only add new entries to the back/forward history 
> when you go to a totally new page (e.g. by clicking a link). If you just 
> go back or forward, you should only change your position in the 
> already-existing history. That's (roughly) what EWW does with the patch, 
> with the exception that a new page doesn't go into the history immediately.
> 
> Previously, every time you went back or forward, it added entries to the 
> end of the history list.
> 
> How does this look?

It is IMO still not clear enough about the behavior change.  It looks
like you are describing what the old implementation did and the new
one will do, instead of describing the behavior as it the user will
see it.  Can you instead describe the change in terms of user-facing
behavior?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.