131–140 of 919 posts
...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.
Is this really a big deal? Don't many websites either redirect the www to the non-www, or the other way around?
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 does this matter? Users don't care and its easier to remember/understand that all websites are just "x.com" rather than sometimes being "www.x.com". If you have some server/troubleshooting/network/dev problem with it, the missing info should be moved to developer tools. This is just removing data that is useless and confusing to 99.9% of users - whats the problem?
Because they are on www. and not *. What happens when you copy and paste that URL? Now every single website that wants to support Chrome needs to ensure that https://foo.com is always redirected to https://www.foo.com , or at least works as if it's www. It doesn't matter that most websites already do this, it's not standard, and represents Google breaking standards because they are big enough to do their own thing. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 LE means that the mantra "if it's https then it's a secure and reputable website" is now outdated.
No it didn't. Let's Encrypt made free certificates easier to get, but Let's Encrypt doesn't do less verification than some other CAs/some of their products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are on www. and not *. What happens when you copy and paste that URL? Now every single website that wants to support Chrome needs to ensure that https://foo.com is always redirected to https://www.foo.com , or at least works as if it's www. It doesn't matter that most websites already do this, it's not standard, and represents Google breaking standards because they are big enough to do their own thing. I…
When you copy and paste, it has the whole URL - just like when you copy and paste now it will include http(s)://
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).
If you click into the address bar to copy/paste, the full URL will come back.
First click gives you a suggested list of URLs and related searches.
Second click gives you the full domain name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you have an example of somebody who needs to serve different web content for foo.com and www.foo.com, I look forward to seeing it. But I've never seen one, and when I've seen it happen accidentally it's due to idiocy.
Considering a subdomain "trivial" is ridiculous... there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com". Not only can they serve different sites, they can even have different DNS records! It seems that "m." is also considered a trivial subdomain. So when a user clicks a link to a "m.facebook.com" uri, they'll be confused why FB looks different when the browser reports it's on "facebook.com". I sincerely h…