URL and Image fields text is too close to the field borders – RTL

[Moshe1010]

Affected version

2.2.10 Patch 1

It seems that in RTL the text suggesting what the field means is too close to the border of the field compared to LTR





Also the http shouldn't be seen as RTL. It should be written from LTR or else it doesn't make sense writing it RTL. URLs are written the same way in RTL as in LTR (http:// etc`). So the "http://" should be written from the left (also it's a time to update this to https://

 

[TPerry]

(also it's a time to update this to https://

If the site is set up properly, if SSL is enabled it should automatically route you to the HTTPS site. You can also simply use // and it should route to the correct one also... I've had to do that in templates/scripts if I did not know whether it was secured or not.

 

[Moshe1010]

If the site is set up properly, if SSL is enabled it should automatically route you to the HTTPS site. You can also simply use // and it should route to the correct one also... I've had to do that in templates/scripts if I did not know whether it was secured or not.

Yeah, I was just referring to the text in the field.

 

[TPerry]

Yeah, I was just referring to the text in the field.

I think it's more a hint than anything else... and there ARE sites that are not SSL secured, so if you had HTTPS:// there, and the user used that and the remote site was NOT SSL secured, you would have an invalid link since most non-SSL sites don't redirect SSL calls to the non-SSL location.

 

[Moshe1010]

I think it's more a hint than anything else... and there ARE sites that are not SSL secured, so if you had HTTPS:// there, and the user used that and the remote site was NOT SSL secured, you would have an invalid link since most non-SSL sites don't redirect SSL calls to the non-SSL location.

If they don't have SSL, Chrome for example will block them anyway by default unless the user allows the webpage to bypass it (but most users won't find this setting). In the next coming months other browsers will follow (I think Firefox already has that as well).

 

[TPerry]

If they don't have SSL, Chrome for example will block them anyway by default unless the user allows the webpage to bypass it (but most users won't find this setting). In the next coming months other browsers will follow (I think Firefox already has that as well).

My version of Chrome (which I just checked and is current) doesn't on my current install of Windows 10. I just went to http://neverssl.com and hit their site fine.... along with the redirect to their site. I'm assuming you are referring to the "Safe Browsing" option? I have the standard option selected.
I realize that their game plan is to eventually try to, by default, prevent HTTP site visits... but those sites (valid sites BTW) will still exist... and the ability to access them will continue, even if it takes changing settings.
What it DOES do is prevent insecure content from loading on a secure site, but I think the XF link/image proxy was a method to get around that.

 

[Moshe1010]

My version of Chrome (which I just checked and is current) doesn't on my current install of Windows 10. I just went to http://neverssl.com and hit their site fine.... along with the redirect to their site. I'm assuming you are referring to the "Safe Browsing" option? I have the standard option selected.
I realize that their game plan is to eventually try to, by default, prevent HTTP site visits... but those sites (valid sites BTW) will still exist... and the ability to access them will continue, even if it takes changing settings.
What it DOES do is prevent insecure content from loading on a secure site, but I think the XF link/image proxy was a method to get around that.

They probably blocked certain domains. I encounter this on a .tv domain lately.