Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Removes http:// from Chrome

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#51

Post by jheriko »

Zev wrote: post #50
snprbob86 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they would probably see abc.foo.com as different from xyz.foo.com

The www. prefix is a special case for people; it literally means "its the w orld w ide w eb" or "its the internet" to them. Technically, the subdomain is irrelevant. But, most people don't know this. They don't know how the internet works and (I'd suspect that this is true in more cases than you might think), think that www. is needed to get to whatever site they want to visit. Of course, this is all assuming that th…

You are right - but I think there is a difference in that omitting http:// doesn't break so many things.

Try this link: http://www.news.ycombinator.com for example - this is what happens to most addresses not prefixed with www. This means that hiding the www. would mean waiting to work out that the site doesn't exist (or the connection is down) before trying the non www. version, and worse that you would get the wrong site if www.foo.com and foo.com were distinct. Hiding the http:// doesn't have such massive implementation issues.

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#52

Post by Zev »

jheriko wrote: post #51
Zev wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The www. prefix is a special case for people; it literally means "its the w orld w ide w eb" or "its the internet" to them. Technically, the subdomain is irrelevant. But, most people don't know this. They don't know how the internet works and (I'd suspect that this is true in more cases than you might think), think that www. is needed to get to whatever site they want to visit. Of course, this is all assuming that th…

You are right - but I think there is a difference in that omitting http:// doesn't break so many things. Try this link: http://www.news.ycombinator.com for example - this is what happens to most addresses not prefixed with www. This means that hiding the www. would mean waiting to work out that the site doesn't exist (or the connection is down) before trying the non www. version, and worse that you would get the wron…

Right. My point was supposed to be that the average user doesn't know about these implications. And since it actually makes a difference in what page is viewed, don't hide the www. from them. Sorry if I wasn't too clear.

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#53

Post by Qz »

ay wrote: post #41
Qz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh -- still, that doesn't seem like something that can't be fixed with minor tweaking.

code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41609 is an example where there's a hard problem that materializes out of thin air as a result.

Read the thread... doesn't seem like a 'hard' problem, rather, it just seems like there are multiple ways to handle the issue and they haven't decided on which one yet.

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#54

Post by Qz »

Zev wrote: post #50
snprbob86 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they would probably see abc.foo.com as different from xyz.foo.com

The www. prefix is a special case for people; it literally means "its the w orld w ide w eb" or "its the internet" to them. Technically, the subdomain is irrelevant. But, most people don't know this. They don't know how the internet works and (I'd suspect that this is true in more cases than you might think), think that www. is needed to get to whatever site they want to visit. Of course, this is all assuming that th…

I generally just type in the name of the site that I want:

'amazon' for www.amazon.com

Firefox is generally smart enough to take me to where I want to go. The only issue is when some hack site games it's way to the top of a search result for something else, but I've only run into that a few times.

Which is itself an issue -- since many browsers are now turning the 'address bar' into a combo search+address bar, novice users may not even realize what the difference is (or was).

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#55

Post by Qz »

benofsky wrote: post #2

Considering how much is abstracted from the user these days, I've always wondered why something as technical and meaningless to the average user like " http:// hasn't been removed before. Good move I say.

The article author makes a good point about replacing the http:// and friends with a set of icons rather than removing it entirely.

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#56

Post by Qz »

mapleoin wrote: post #30
DrSprout wrote: post #29

> Since 99.999% of the people only ever encounter http:// , ftp://, and https:// (did I forget any?), why not create a standard set of easy-to-understand icons to replace them, in cooperation with other browser makers? For me at least it's a lot harder to memorize the meaning of a 16x16 pixel image than a four-character string. Also, we have exactly the same problem that Google's having with this, which is that it's…

how do you copy/paste a 16x16 pixel image + half of the URL?

You replace the image with http:// just like they currently add back in the http:// when you copy the naked link out of the address bar.

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#57

Post by qjz »

The scheme is an essential part of the URL. Copying an URL from a browser's location bar used to be a reliable way of sharing links, but this change introduces a greater potential for errors (there's no reason to assume an https resource is available via http, for example).

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#58

Post by Qz »

stevejohnson wrote: post #49
joeyh wrote: post #47

I've already been bitten from this change a half-dozen times. Every time I want to share with someone an url I have open in chromium now, I have to manually type " http:// . Hopefully they will eventually fix it so copying from the location bar will include the full url. (Complicated of course by the fact that a user may only copy part of the url, leaving off eg "?foo")

I was under the impression that copying from the location bar was supposed to include the http:// . If it doesn't, that is a pretty strange oversight.

It generally does, although there are a few issue with copying partial text out of the bar, e.g:

[news.ycombinator.com]/somejunk

Copying the bracketed portion should include the http:// but some situation were causing it not to be copied, etc.

Re: Google Removes http:// from Chrome

#60

Post by stanleydrew »

qjz wrote: post #57

The scheme is an essential part of the URL. Copying an URL from a browser's location bar used to be a reliable way of sharing links, but this change introduces a greater potential for errors (there's no reason to assume an https resource is available via http, for example).

But the scheme is still shown for https.
Post reply on HN