Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

bugs.chromium.org

301–310 of 919 posts

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

#301
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It breaks how the web is supposed to function. There is no consensus on the utilization of subdomains and which ones are considered to be trivial. I could write an app which maps usernames to subdomains and Chrome would break this if a user had a username which was in the trivial list. I think Tumblr is a site which does this. It really isn't about technical or non-technical, it is about what subdomains can be used f…

There's no such thing as "how the web is supposed to function." There is an ideal that the plurality of the early web once sought to chase. There are more ideals that the more commerce-friendly users and creators of the web started to chase. The norm is always shifting. It's our job as technologists to accommodate how people want to use technology, not to tell them that the way they want to use it is wrong. Because i…

> There are more ideals that the more commerce-friendly users and creators of the web started to chase.

What are those?

> It's our job as technologists to accommodate how people want to use technology, not to tell them that the way they want to use it is wrong.

If some kids wish to use the technology to do DDos attacks it doesn't mean we should build it into the browser, the same is true here.

> Because if we try to tell them no,

Just say No to this crap, that's all.

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

#302
As a developer on multi-tenant applications that are mounted on different subdomains, considering `site.com` same with `www.site.com` should be outright illegal! There is nothing trivial about the domains above and are considered separate unless configured to be pointing to the same record.

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

#303
post #24

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.

> Firefox does something similar by greying out

So, not similar at all?

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

#304

The UX of moving what I'm looking at instantly under click is very unpleasant too, www. and http and even the "secure" "not secure" banners is like 200px shifts. Lots of google's UI is getting (or has) things shifting instantly under the pointer it's quite annoying. The new gmail design quick-tools are often in the way, unknown until you actually click. Hell calling on my phone shifts the speaker and keypad buttons o…

> The UX of moving what I'm looking at instantly under click is very unpleasant too,

Could you expand on this? What are you referring to?

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

#305
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does www matter?

Quoted from a comment in the linked site: > How will you distinguish http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org ? > One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server.

This is so obvious, it's confusing that it's even a question. Hiding www doesn't make things simpler, it just hides complexity.

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

#307

It begins. I saw this this morning, and thought it was something that was coming in the next few versions, not right now . https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/ WTF? People get angry when you just move their cheese without notice.

>People get angry when you just move their cheese without notice. Sorry, unrelated, but ahah, what is this saying? I love it and have never heard it before. I guess it's from some sort of book? https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/cheese-moving-effecting-change-ra...

It's an idiom.

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-does-who-moved-my-cheese-...

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

#309
post #104

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.

"If you click into the address bar to copy/paste, the full URL will come back."

Which is also terrible behavior. Unwanted characters hidden into your paste buffer is at best unexpected and capricious behavior and at worst a source of serious, possibly catastrophic consequences (depending on what, and where, you are pasting).

How soon until a doctored up paste buffer contains, by design, a newline character ? I'm sure there must be some use-case that (appears to) call for this ...

Post reply on HN