I would just point out that HN does this in the title of every link posted, and has been doing this for years.
HN removes all subdomains, not just "trivial" ones. That's a separate issue.
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
201–210 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#202Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are all in the same origin so they can read cookies and manipulate pages.
This is not true unless the cookie is specifically marked to be domain-wide. There was a time when IE misbehaved. Not sure if this fixed in Edge: https://www.mxsasha.eu/blog/2014/03/04/definitive-guide-to-c...
> There was a time when IE misbehaved. Not sure if this fixed in Edge: https://www.mxsasha.eu/blog/2014/03/04/definitive-guide-to-c....
Pretty sure that was fixed in Edge and IE (as a security issue).
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#204Since everyone is wondering why, and since I happened to stumble across a reason during my time as a pentester, here you go: Spearphishing is still one of the most common ways of breaching a corporate network. If I target you, you will likely fall for one of my attempts. If you are a company rather than a person, my odds go way up, because I have N chances to trick someone rather than 1 (where N is roughly the number…
if the idea is to protect users so that you don't end up clicking on https://news.ycombinator.com.myhackerdomain.com , you then open the attack of a platform where they offer custom subdomains, and you have https://original.blogger.com and then https://fake-original.blogger.com if I make them look the same, and the address will hide the subdomain, it looks like a step backwards in securing the web now, imagine the ac…
Except original and fake-original is not hidden.
Try opening
https://opensource.googleblog.com/
https://security.googleblog.com/
Both opensource and security are shown.
Disc: Googler but don't work on this project.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does www matter?
Same exact reason that api.domain.com or beta.domain.com matters - you're on a subdomain, not the root domain. That the internet and world at large made www the "kind of" root domain in many cases is an unfortunate thing, but I've not seen a modern server configuration that doesn't handle this case by default.
But when using HTTP(S), you nearly always expect the "www." domain and the root domain to host the same content. It's very, very rare that this isn't the case. Chrome appears to be hiding "m.", too, which is unfortunate (as would api. or beta. being hidden), but "www." is such boilerplate for HTTP at this point that I don't think it matters whether it's displayed or not.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#206This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.
I would love to, but Firefox just feels more clunky. Not sure what it is, but the scrolling doesn't feel native to me (MacOS, Magic Trackpad and Logitech Mouse)
You can turn off that scroll behavior.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.
They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?
the only thing you've changed is now those 99.9% users can't even find the information they need to ask the .1% for help
great work
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#208Why 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…
[deleted]
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#209I'm ok with hiding "www.", but it also hides "m." which is sometimes very confusing (I once opened a m.facebook.com link and was very puzzled why it uses the mobile site when the URl bar just shows "facebook.com").
Facebook aside, don't the majority of sites show you mobile version by looking at headers. Isn't that the whole reason the "Show desktop version" feature even exists in Chrome, to send the desktop header? Very few sites actually use www. vs m.
Clearly, in those cases, people aren't "confused" by the fact that they are seeing a mobile version on www., so other than the fact that you're used to Facebook specifically working this way, wouldn't you just send the Desktop header whenever you get mobile and want desktop?
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.
They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?
According to Apple, they care about "wikipedia.org", only.