501–510 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you verify the authority owns the content? For instance: AMP urls serve content from a different authority than the one that produces the content.
Google wants to introduce Web Packaging to solve this: https://youtu.be/pr5cIRruBsc?t=543
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the same issue at all, in that domains with different suffixes are controlled by different people while foo.com and www.foo.com are controlled by the same people. 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.
> while foo.com and www.foo.com are controlled by the same people Sometimes. Far from always. In some environments, `www` may be under an entirely different administrative domain, with lesser authority than the top level domain which is delegating web services to the `www` group by way of creating a dns record and/or adding an http(s) redirect to the parent domain. Having some string values arbitrarily considered tri…
These string values are already considered equivalent, which is why Chrome is making this change, and why every reasonable site has one redirect to the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I ask what's broken? I understand it's displayed incorrectly in the worst cases and obscurely in most, but broken?
Well, I understood it did not only display differently, but make the actual request to the stripped URL. I don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not only obscuring. This is plain breaking tons of stuff for people.
Can I ask what's broken? I understand it's displayed incorrectly in the worst cases and obscurely in most, but broken?
2. Google directs user to www.example.org.
3. User sees url as example.org and notes it down.
4. User needs to visit example.org again, but for some reason it doesn't work.
5. User goes to coworker who shows him that example.org does in fact work (hidden www).
6. Endless confusion ensues.
This is bad UX decision on Google part (on top of it breaking published standards)
> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…
This change goes far beyond merely hiding the "www." prefix. I'm not making up these examples: 1. "m.tumblr.com " and "tumblr.com " are BOTH displayed as "tumblr.com" even though they're literally different sites. 2. "www.example.www.example.com" displays as "example.example.com" which means all "www" subdomains, whether leading or not are being stripped out. 3. In the extreme case, "www.m.www.m.example.com" shows up…
1 is by design though. Remember that they are only partially hidden; when you focus on the address bar it reveals the true address.
[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881410...
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…
Everytime they want to use Facebook, they type 'facebook' or maybe 'facebook login' in the location/search bar.
And to get to their gmail account they might type their own email address in the location bar.
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…
Most people don't care about the location bar. Everytime they want to use Facebook, they type 'facebook' or maybe 'facebook login' in the location/search bar. And to get to their gmail account they might type their own email address in the location bar.
> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…
What exactly is the usability improvement from hiding part of the domain name? Maybe we should be hiding ".com" because that's trivial too? Better yet, why show "google" at all if from the page it's clear you're on Google? Might as well just fullscreen the content pane and be done with it.
Quite simply the www subdomain is confusing and unnecessary. See comment from the ISP admin I cited re: user training.
> Maybe we should be hiding ".com" because that's trivial too? Better yet, why show "google" at all if from the page it's clear you're on Google?
Those aren't really serious counterexamples. ".com" is obviously not trivial; there are plenty of TLD variants in use. It is approximately 0.0000000001% as common to run separate HTTP servers on example.com and www.example.com. And clearly different domains can spoof one another's content so that's not a way to be "clear" you're on google.com, whereas this is not generally an issue with subdomains.
Again your reaction is just sort of knee-jerk exaggerated resistance to change, not actual real world problem cases.
Safari already hides "www.". In fact it hides everything except the root-level domain, e.g. " https://www.google.com/about/" shows just "[lock] google.com". Firefox and Opera show the full domain but gray out everything in the entire URL except the root-level domain, so "www." is gray. Just saying, de-emphasizing and hiding parts of the URL is clearly a trend. This isn't just a Google thing.
this is actually the main reason I cannot use Safari. It always boggled my mind that they made this decision. For power users, they never look at the url unless they want information from it, in which case the `www` is valuable. For low tech users, it can lead to straight up incomprehensible issues, like sites not rendering properly (think of a `m.*`). The UI gains are so small, that part of the screen is never reall…
I think it makes sense for the default display to show the most security-relevant information (TLD, SLD, and presence + validity of the certificate) in the default display, while deferring the full display (incl. spurious or malicious information that might be in the full URL e.g. https://example.com/www/paypal/com/login) to a user request (click or shortcut).
That said, Chrome 69's decision to to hide /all/ instances of www in the domain is unconscionably bad.