Russell Nelson &lt;russnelson(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: Posted this issue at <http://hexm.de/8m>. Mark.

"Carl (CBM)" &lt;cbm.wikipedia(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: As of this morning, I count 21 "support" and 25 "oppose". Part of the opposition was how I phrased it. Wikipedia obviously doesn't "need" a share button. I also didn't make it clear that I didn't think we should or would use any one else's "share" button since that would allow them to track their users through Wikipedia. As a result, I didn't count the one opposition that seemed primarily concerned with the tracking issue. Someone pointed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheDJ/Sharebox and I tried it out, but it only worked after disabling the Firefox extension that I use to stop trackers. I'm glad TheDJ has made this available for those that want to use it, but I would like to get something else in place that doesn't share data with any intermediaries (such as AddThis.com) beyond the place that the user actually wants to share the page. Mark.

Use a jsMsg or the new version of it, and deliver images as data url in the css. If you use ordinary lmages in a scripted html-tingy it will load a long time after the dom is generated. Most social networks can be accessed with a single url, but it is a lot of sites right now. We have 36 at no.wp and that isn't everyone. So far as to create the request to the social network to do a posting isn't really difficult. The problem is if you add text and images in the posting and you want the posting to update as the article itself is changed. John On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Roan Kattouw &lt;roan.kattouw(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:17:43 -0700, Marco Schuster &lt;marco(a)harddisk.is-a-geek.org&gt; wrote: That's not really all that much of a solution: - Right now it's pretty stuck in 3 vendors - It doesn't scale very well. If you do try to add more vendors and users do enable most of them, you still end up loading from each enabled vendor slowing things down. - Frankly the UI is pretty bad. - Likely due to FB's terms the FB icon isn't actually the FB icon until you enable it. So there's even a chance that a user won't even know they 'can' share on FB because the FB button doesn't look like a FB button. - Once you enable a vendor we drop right back to a 3rd party script being injected into the page such that it can do malicious things. Btw, if you're a 3rd party with a script in a page you can go pretty far abusing XHR and history.pushState to make it look to a user like they're browsing the website normally when in reality they're on the same page with the script still running. Oh, and that includes making it look like you're safely visiting the login page when in reality you didn't change pages and the script is still running ready to catch passwords. -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Gries &lt;mail(a)tgries.de&gt; wrote: It doesn't think much of you either. Would you share a "like" button?

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 01:12:51 -0700, Marco Schuster &lt;marco(a)harddisk.is-a-geek.org&gt; wrote: No, both the Twitter and Google +1 share features in that socialshareprivacy are also embeds, not simple images paired with links. In fact while FB has a static share and Twitter has it's static share and intents, being the newest +1 hasn't implemented a static share feature yet. Likely somewhat related to the separation of +1 and G+ which unlike with the others +1ing something doesn't mean you're using G+. No, there are other potential possibilities that don't include a bad ui. I don't know of any specific links you can look at, I realized it myself after looking at pushState. It's probably known elsewhere but I figured it out independently so I don't know of any more detailed articles or posts on it off my head. -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]