I've split off the "copy link address" into its own feature request so it doesn't get lost:
https://github.com/philc/vimium/issues/321

Thanks for the idea.

How would the preview work if you then wanted to visit the url? Maybe you can s-f then hit the key combo for the link you want to preview, that shows it in the status bar, then hit enter to actually visit it (or open it in a tab if you did s-F instead), or esc otherwise.

blaix, I think the best way to do this would be for vimium to simply hover the link. Then you could choose to hit enter to open (or ctrl + enter for new tab) just as you would if you tabbed through links without vimium.

Yep. That would be perfect.

Looks like I had accidentally closed this issue before... Anyways, I was thinking again about how useful this would be, as I often like to see the url before activating it, and constantly have to reach for the mouse as a result.

I suggest calling it "Preview link url" and the binding could be _pf + link hint_. It would focus the link (as though you manually tabbed over it) so that the browser would show the url in the browser status bar, and you could simply press 'Enter' (or Ctrl+Enter for new tab) to activate the link.

There's a lot of interest in this issue. Is there a PR floating around?

1089 is a good start, but I think we should try and closer mimic chrome's UI, and I don't know that it should be its own command.

It would actually be really helpful, allowing us to hover over links to simulate the hover or mouse over events. I just spent some time trying to find an alternate way to do this and there isn't an easy one. This is the only thing between me not having to touch the mouse.

Is there a way to do this? It seems all the various issues / threads have been closed, but I don't see how it was ever resolved. Yanking is not a solution, as it clobbers the clipboard.

@snapfractalpop Sure yank is not, besides polluting the clipboard, one also has to paste the yanked link to see it.

I wonder what the tag closing-lack-of-interest means, is it that too few people are interested in this feature so it won't be implemented, or no one is making a PR for this even many people have  shown need for this since 2011?

There's a lot of interest in this issue.

...

closing-lack-of-interest

There was clearly a lot of interest at one point, and several threads about this very topic. There's a bit of a "runaround" with the threads making circular references to one another. Perhaps the lack of progress has been mistaken for a lack of interest. I'm confident there is still a lot of interest in this.