I hope people start moving from chrome to firefox. The standards they pushing are harming the web in ways.
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
311–320 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#312Anyone know if this checks for a DNS record that supports equivalency between the www/empty subdomains? It's possible for them to have different values.
DNS equivalency is meaningless here. You'd have to have a way to check the with the webserver because of name based virtual hosting and SNI.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#313Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#314Ja this is terrible idea !
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#315as a developer i can already forsee the pain of debugging an issue with cookies and realizing that it comes down to the subdomain
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#316Considering 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?
Consider the different types of records you need to add for those examples if your web host is Heroku or some other cloud provider:
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is certainly subverting the domain name system. I can't see the value or gain in security by this. (If you want to put focus on the domain, then display the host-part with less contrast, i.e. grey, but don't hide any potentially vital information. Otherwise, put out a RFC, defining "www" as a substitute for "*", or a zero-value atom, in order to guarantee consistent behavior.) Edit: There are also legal concerns…
A proposal for better security with domain names: The domain name system has been around for decades and it's a clever and proven system. It can – and should be – taught in school and, arguably, knowledge of it is, while not difficult to obtain, essential in our times. Additional ambiguity in this is probably not what we want. Arguably, the most sincere problems arise from mixed alphabets with Unicode domains and loo…
[deleted]
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#318Earlier 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%)
Well, might as well drop then entire stuff after the domain.com/{dump all this out} (the file path) since non-techy people don't really care about it. All they care is about clicking links and navigating... /end sarcasm
TBH, so long as there always remains the option to show the full URL, I'd be totally fine with completely hiding it by default. Safari all but does that right now.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the user sees "Wik1pedia.org/wiki/Canada"? Or "аррӏе.com"? Hiding random parts of the address isn't going to make browsing the web better. The main purpose of URLs is for hyperlinks, not as a highly intuitive user interface. Users who don't know how URLs work don't care what is up there. They only care that what they are looking at is what they expect, and a way to get to where they want to go. And that's a c…
Don’t Firefox and Safari also have a single bar for searches? Yet neither company runs a search engine. I don’t suppose it’s possible this is just better for most users?
Firefox will allow you to search via the address bar, but it still has a separate search bar to the right by default.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#320Earlier 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.
I didn't realize that the standards of the web specified anything about how an address bar should be displayed (or, for that matter, that it specified anything about an address bar even existing).
> This document describes the syntax and semantics for a compact string
representation for a resource available via the Internet. These
strings are called "Uniform Resource Locators" (URLs).