Unfortunately, it’s a problem with some browsers. The OP said we might fall back on .safe which has not been confirmed. This might be a good time to discuss solutions. Maybe move to an older thread or make a new one?
If we do decide to use the dot.extension we will need to decide on the name of that extension, if not .safe.
If there’s one aspect I may mainly talk about (though I might be missing something presently regarding all the other eventually just-as-exciting facets of the network), I’m really excited about updated documentation. It’ll be fun having more-real, newly tangible material to discuss, among those willing to think and not indiscriminately type so many words about undocumented issues (which immediately leads to subjective, or off-topic at best, thinking). Marvelous to think about it being accessible/available this month, if it indeed gets finished by then (which I feel like it probably could be). Knowing that everyone involved has realistic outlooks (brief e.g.: the safe extension considerations) is always a welcoming commodity within any forum. In short: yay; also, Nick Lambert. (I just saw his post, about documentation not superseding everything else, which is of course, good.)
I understand completely why your asking, but it probably isn’t to helpful for us to make predictions at this point, they have proven to be inaccurate to this point. What we can say is that Routing is very close, we need to assess where we are with Vaults, finalise Crust and then bring it all together.
Just kidding, thank you for your patience with us. At least you know there’s an avid community, just chomping at the bit to get involved, start nodes, and spread the word of freedom to the world once it’s available
Totally understand and to be honest we’re exactly the same, the thought of being able to start to use something we have been working on for close to 10 years is very exciting. We’ll also enjoy spreading the word with you.
If SAFE takes off, then it might start making sense to register the TLD. For now .safenet is less likely, but it’s there’s little incentive for anyone to apply for such a long TLD. But that can change.
My thoughts as well. It somehow feels wrong to change a technically correct and sensible format because some browsers are very restrictive in their plugin capabilities. Maybe it’s my perfectionist attitude compromising pragmatic judgement, but I’m inclined to say, let them adjust to us instead. We’ll use Firefox in the mean time.
Besides, it’s probably wise to use a separate browser installation for SAFE surfing anyway, if you care about privacy.
We simply must attract and retain as many users as possible because the success of the network depends on it. Then, if we succeed, we get the chance to write new standards, which I think will be more radical: our own secure SAFE OS with the SAFE Browser, that you can tell to include the old net if you really really must!
The ease and simplicity of the safe networks under the hood security is also a very high priority and what will help generic web surfers adopt it. If they can be easily tricked it’s not serving that purpose. I think some browsers like chrome are inherently restrictive, could change at their own whim and it’s their loss. It’s like the team would be doing them a favor, yet you have the opportunity to capture a fraction of chrome users. Pay out doesn’t way out to me personally.
The developers who are close to the code have a viewpoint unavailable to the all but the most intelligent and enthusiastic few. An insight, even if somewhat vague, might prove useful to those who are invested in the outcome of the project and need to make real world decisions.
I think guesstimations by those at the coalface would have real world value. Far better than a blanket ban on this sort of guess work. This information, even if it proves ultimately inaccurate, is not of zero value.