> It would be very nice to have a link to the recipes underlying raw
> data in the repository, in case there is an error or addition to be
> made

In your opinion, should the link point to the recipe file in the repo or
actually provide the underlying raw data as plain text?

---
another try

 alex | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 alex

diff --git a/alex b/alex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b4380e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/alex
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I'm about to try git send-email!
[message trimmed]

---
Another fix

 alex | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 alex

diff --git a/alex b/alex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e6bc5e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/alex
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I am about to try git send-email!
[message trimmed]

---
This fixes the issues raised from the first patch.

 alex | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 alex

diff --git a/alex b/alex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e6bc5e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/alex
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I am about to try git send-email!
[message trimmed]

---
 alex | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
 create mode 100644 alex

diff --git a/alex b/alex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..36ae7a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/alex
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I am about to try git send-email
-- 
2.38.4
[message trimmed]

---

Hi Seirdy!

I've translated your "WhatsApp and the domestication of users" post
to German and added the reference to my translation to your blog in
this patch.

Unfortunately, I was not able to run make hugo successfully before
or after my commit - so please double check whether it works for you
befory applying my patch.

Cheers,
Alex
[message trimmed]

On 01.05.22 17:18, Conrad Hoffmann wrote:

>> I found an old email thread [1], where Drew defends the exclusion of
>> "allow-popups" from the sandbox CSP. Personally, I'd be interested in
>> him elaborating more on that decision.
> 
> Can't speak for Drew, but I personally very much support that sites (not
> just srht) should not be able to open popups, ever :)
> 
> I would concede that one can have different opinions on the fact that
> the spec considers target=_blank the same as opening a popup, but to me,
> even that does make sense. But even if you don't, allowing popups
> outright seems like a pretty bad trade-off.

As Ignas pointed out to me (thanks!), it is indeed the CSP:

> target="_blank" requires an allow-popups directive when CSP has a
sandbox directive

I found an old email thread [1], where Drew defends the exclusion of
"allow-popups" from the sandbox CSP. Personally, I'd be interested in
him elaborating more on that decision.

If Drew stands by his CSP decision, is this worth being documented as a
limitation of the CSP? Clicking on a link with nothing happening is a
bit irritating ...

For the time being I'll remove the target="_blank" from the links in my

Hi all!

I've finally decided to investigate why links from my blog (published
via sr.ht pages) to external pages only ever open if I explicitly
instruct the browser to open the link in a new tab. By just clicking the
link, nothing happens.

To me, the html code of my website [1] looks fine, e.g.:

<a rel="noopener noreferrer"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank"
class="ext-links">CC BY 4.0</a>

Great! Thanks.