31–40 of 919 posts
Is this really a big deal? Don't many websites either redirect the www to the non-www, or the other way around?
It's about the principle. www is a valid subdomain. Browsers are supposed to be as unopinionated as possible since they are browsers , not mediators, and their job is to implement the standards of the web.
The fix is to change your subdomain from "www" to "amp". You can read more about it at the IETF website located here: https://www.ampproject.org/ Please submit any complaints you have as a video on YouTube.
The fix is to change your subdomain from "www" to "amp". You can read more about it at the IETF website located here: https://www.ampproject.org/ Please submit any complaints you have as a video on YouTube.
This isn't entirely without precedent. Firefox does something similar by greying out the `www` in the UI, Chrome just decided to take things a step further by hiding it entirely.
This isn't entirely without precedent. Firefox does something similar by greying out the `www` in the UI, Chrome just decided to take things a step further by hiding it entirely.
If the browser uses some technique to detect that www.domain.com is functionally identical to domain.com for a given domain, then I don't see a serious problem with this. But if they are short of that certainty, they're obscuring a critical part of the URL, and harming usability (e.g., if I want to jot down a site's URL for later use, I might get something unexpected).
The fix is to change your subdomain from "www" to "amp". You can read more about it at the IETF website located here: https://www.ampproject.org/ Please submit any complaints you have as a video on YouTube.
Please tell me this is a joke...
I hadn't thought about the amp angle, but that could be another reason for pushing this, too. Perhaps there are more we won't know until it's too late to do anything about it (other than changing browsers, of course).
This is idiotic and harmful. We already lost information about the protocol, because somebody believed it is "too complex" for users. Now we're losing other parts of the URL. It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me? It used to signify that a "known authority" certified that I'm connected to whatever I see in the URL bar. But now that browsers take liberties wit…
...I'm okay with this, I think. Has www (http over tcp/ip) not become the default protocol for "the internet" in the average person's mind?
I think websites should just stop using "www." entirely and host directly on their domain rather than a subdomain.