61–70 of 74 posts
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).
I can see the obscuring of http:// being useful way back in 1995, but in 2010, it seems kind of a moot point given how ubiquitous the act of web browsing is.
Wouldn't it be more useful now that web browsing is so ubiquitous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Omitting the http prefix breaks the links (makes them relative) in some contexts, like some blog comments. I think people should learn about the http prefix anyway. Even our grandmas. To do that, the best we can do is to let it appear in the url bar.
But we're not talking about removing http:// from actual urls, just from the display in the address bar. I guess you're saying that seeing it in the address bar highlights that it's an important part of an actual url, which is useful for education?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The functional confusion stems from the modification of basic copy/paste, not from the removal of data from the address bar.
Oh -- still, that doesn't seem like something that can't be fixed with minor tweaking.
WYSIWYG copy/paste is bound to break at some point. But it should be pushed as far as possible to complex tasks not floated into the most abstract action - copying an address. The issue is conceptual, it is unrelated to implementation.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really www.foo.com is distinct from foo.com. http:// is pretty redundant - you usually only want to specify the protocol if its not http.
I doubt that the "average" person would realize that foo.com is different from www.foo.com — or that they could even be different.
> 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?
www35.company.com/bar/foo.aspx
and just copied: company.com/bar/foo.aspx
Would the http:// come over? how about if I just copied "bar/foo.aspx" ?
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).
Copy-pasting includes the scheme (mostly, there's a couple bugs at the moment). Better to read up on the issue before commenting about how it's supposedly broken.
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.