This reminds me of Windows hiding file extensions by default. So annoying... now you don't know what your dealing with, it's harder to modify etc
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
281–290 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#282Considering 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…
>there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com" Can you link to a site where these two are different?
I don't remember the site offhand, but I was going to one recently where example.com didn't even work, it was some weird error page -- you had to use www.example.com. If it comes to me, I'll post it.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#283Seriously? This is such a bad change, I hope they revert this patch in the next update. There's a world of difference between the two and this is going to cause an ecosystem nightmare.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#284I, for one, cannot wait until this is exploited somehow by phishers
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#285Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think it matters, quite a bit actually. My expectation as a user is that the URL I see in the bar is the URL of the site I'm visiting. If it's not accurate, then why show it at all?
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#287I'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").
What you may be surprised to learn is that Chrome isn't just stripping "www." from the beginning of the subdomain. "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com"
Isn't this a security risk? What if someone malicious takes control of the www.com domain?
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com" Can you link to a site where these two are different?
I don't remember the site offhand, but I was going to one recently where example.com didn't even work, it was some weird error page -- you had to use www.example.com. If it comes to me, I'll post it.
I've seen this behaviour, and the reverse. Can't remember examples, but it does happen.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#289I'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").
What you may be surprised to learn is that Chrome isn't just stripping "www." from the beginning of the subdomain. "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com"
Should file this as a bug. If they seriously missed this that is just amazing.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#290Considering 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…
m. is where you often receive a feature degraded, app-walled, or sign-in walled website that isn't present on the full-featured website. I want to know that I'm receiving a degraded version of a website and that maybe dropping the m. will restore it.
I must say that m.twitter.com is a better desktop website than twitter.com itself.