Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL • Hacker News Board

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#121

Post by rhencke » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

floatingatoll wrote: post #31

theprotocol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your opinion that browsers should be unopinionated is not an opinion shared by browsers.

To give some examples of this:

* Chrome encourages you to sign in to the browser with a Google account.

* Firefox's new tab page shows stories and articles from Pocket.

* The news feed shown by default in Edge provides stories from MSN.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#122

Post by JBiserkov » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

Klonoar wrote: post #94

asimpletune wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is weird. Which users are bothered enough by the leading www enough to justify messing with semantics?

Building on that point, everyone I ever meet who's not technical is www-by-default, because they were trained that way...

Yeah, even radio ads.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#123

Post by theandrewbailey » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

soared wrote: post #60

jwr wrote: post #30

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…

99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)

Citation needed.

Did you ask anyone? Did you do any research?

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#124

Post by stedaniels » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #100

soared wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)

You're missing jwr's point. He's arguing that this is harmful for users, especially the ones who don't know what the words mean. If I were solving this, I'd instead push to eliminate "www" altogether, not sweep it under the rug. It was useful circa 1996, when users might plausibly be using something other than the WWW with a browser. But it has become entirely vestigial.

It's actually very useful for isolating access to the root of the domain. Say for instance you use a third-party SaaS/CMS to host your website and have other services on other subdomains. If it's hosted on the root of the domain it had more power than if it's on a subdomain.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#125

Post by Freak_NL » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

neogodless wrote: post #97

ancarda wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't this (partially?) solved by making the domain black and the rest of the text gray? That's how it appears in Firefox. It makes it very easy to see "ycombinator.com".

Is this specific to a version of Firefox, or an extension? I'm using Firefox 62.0, and I do not see a difference in color between the domain and the rest of the URL. (Windows 10, 1080p screen.) ETA: Holy crap, if I zoom into a screenshot, I can see the difference. My eyes cannot benefit from this feature under normal circumstances, though. Looks like black (#000000) and gray (#807D7D).

I get #9D9D9D on Firefox 61 on Ubuntu (1080p). It is perfectly clear to me.

If you have trouble distinguishing between the grey and black, perhaps file a bug report requesting to slightly lower the saturation of the grey? Or perhaps your browser's theme is using that darker grey?

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#126

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

soared wrote: post #60

jwr wrote: post #30

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…

99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)

This excuse is used far too often to justify why things have to suck.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#127

Post by uberman » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:42 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #100

soared wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)

You're missing jwr's point. He's arguing that this is harmful for users, especially the ones who don't know what the words mean. If I were solving this, I'd instead push to eliminate "www" altogether, not sweep it under the rug. It was useful circa 1996, when users might plausibly be using something other than the WWW with a browser. But it has become entirely vestigial.

Why not drop .com then as well? Most sites are on .com domains after all.

It is exactly the same issue.

A domain is a domain. Google is arbitrarily dictating your CNAME from the user's perspective.

What if you don't serve your site off of mysite.com is google going to automatically try again at www.mysite.com?

What if you have distinct content at both domains?

This decision is stupid.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#128

Post by pmccarren » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:42 PM UTC

some_account wrote: post #93

soared wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)

Let's dumb down the internet even more because non technical users feel confused. Maybe we can actually remove the url field and just let the isp decide where they should go? They could offer a choice of 10 popular sites, like TV channels.. :)

I also wouldn't put it past the average consumer to prefer 'installing' a website/webapp into their browser as they do an app..

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#129

Post by cmiles74 » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

soared wrote: post #60

jwr wrote: post #30

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…

99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)

This makes me think that developers should start moving away from Chrome. Firefox, for instance, still supplies the full URL.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#130

Post by hjfa0j » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

RadioactiveMan wrote: post #45

jwr wrote: post #30

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…

The padlock was already meaningless.

It started being meaningless thanks to Let's Encrypt. Before it meant you had to show your ID and banking info to a "reputable" corporation for them to make a cert for you. Yes I know I know, not always the case, but...

LE means that the mantra "if it's https then it's a secure and reputable website" is now outdated.