Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 919 posts

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

#571

Post by masswerk »

sofaofthedamned wrote: post #497
parliament32 wrote: post #118

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…

Oh come on. "www." was used as a way of delineating what was a web address. Hence the fashion of putting that there so people knew you had to do it in the browser. Before then people used to also put the " http://" on there, and the combination of the two on vehicles/signs was ridiculous. We're now in a web world. People know what a URL is. "domain.com" isn't ambiguous, it's obvious to man, beast or child that you ty…

Ahem. "www" comes from the times, when you had to have a dedicated machine, or, at least, a dedicated network interface, for each service. Hence, you had an FTP server, creatively named "ftp", and your WWW service ran on a host surprisingly named "www". A concept similar to well-known addresses.

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

#572

Post by baby »

trjordan wrote: post #548

It's technically correct that www.example.com and example.com are different domains and can serve different stuff. So are https://example.com and http://example.com . If you serve materially different content based on small differences, that's user-hostile, and common tools have no obligation to support you. Chrome shouldn't cater to sites that change behavior based on a www prefix, because the vast majority of users…

This should be the top comment. Users (including technical users) all behave weirdly by writing "www." depending on their mood or previous experiences. Developers setting up webpages do the same and often manage to screw up a CNAME on the www subdomain or to have two valid certificates for the www. And the non-www. Also, once you rotate cert you now have two to rotate. It's a mess and chrome's change is aiming at normalizing this. The complaints make zero sense.

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

#573

Post by cottsak »

rhizome wrote: post #334
NathanCH wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't know if it's the same thing, but I'll bite: it's absolutely maddening to edit or select part of a URL. Click in the address bar and the entire address is selected, then you click on any part of it to either select a part or to place your cursor in order to add to it, after which Chrome appears to first shift the entire URL to the right in order to show the protocol, then it places the cursor within the shifte…

ugh!!!!! this is killing me

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

#574

Post by Donzo »

magicalist wrote: post #564
Donzo wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why Google is doing this is because they are slowly trying to do away with URLs, as direct traffic is probably their greatest untapped segment. Google is trying to get users to go through their doorway pages, which is exactly the kind of thing for which they penalize publishers. Pay attention to when you enter direct addresses, let's say from a device/media subscription authorization page. The autosuggesti…

> they are slowly trying to do away with URLs They might be changing how they want to display them, but "do away with" is unsupported by the article: > But this will mean big changes in how and when Chrome displays URLs. We want to challenge how URLs should be displayed and question it as we’re figuring out the right way to convey identity. https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/

Did you read the whole article?

"The focus right now, they say, is on identifying all the ways people use URLs to try to find an alternative that will enhance security and identity integrity on the web while also adding convenience for everyday tasks like sharing links on mobile devices."

My statement is clearly supported by the article. They paint a rosy picture of it, because this is a submarine piece, but they are definitely making moves against the url.

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

#575

Post by masswerk »

pvorb wrote: post #555
masswerk wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How about displaying an identicon, that is rendered from the domain, in the address bar? People might soon learn what the icons of their important sites look like and will easily detect if somebody is trying to phish their bank account.

We might even call it "favicon", for the fun of it… :-)

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

#577

Post by kiallmacinnes »

pishpash wrote: post #549
sofaofthedamned wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point - but even my mum (65 and not very good with phones or computers) will just bash the bare domain into her browser.If it's got "www." she'll use that, if not she won't. She still knows it's a web thing, the www. for her and everybody else is superfluous. Things change. We've had something like 30-odd years of URLs. The people who can't deal with this are vanishingly small, and those that can't are likely no…

I'd bet good money this change was put in by people younger than the web.

That may be true, and while I wholeheartedly disagree with this change, those that are younger than the web are the next Shepard's of the web.

We're going to see more and more changes that the "old folks of the internet" are going to hate. Some, or even many, of these changes will actually be good changes. We shouldn't prejudice on age.

Again, to be clear, I think this particular change is horribly broken.

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

#578

Post by tazard »

TheKarateKid wrote: post #423
slenk wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two prominent examples noted in the bug: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are different, http://www.pool.ntp.org and http://pool.ntp.org are different. Like, big companies run separate servers on the two domains. That's besides the fact where if you have www.example.www.example.com, it rewrites to example.example.com.

Just because a major bank and government organization use an unusual domain configuration, it doesn't mean that it is good practice.

And just because it's not a good practice doesn't mean that making both www and non www version look the same to the user and having it "just randomly not load" is a step forward for usability.

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

#579

Post by kba »

masswerk wrote: post #575
pvorb wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about displaying an identicon, that is rendered from the domain, in the address bar? People might soon learn what the icons of their important sites look like and will easily detect if somebody is trying to phish their bank account.

We might even call it "favicon", for the fun of it… :-)

Any fake-Facebook website can copy Facebook's favicon, so that wouldn't add any security at all.

An identicon is a hash value represented as an icon. "facebook.com", for instance, may hash to a red image with a yellow line through it. While you wouldn't remember the icon initially, over time you would – or at least your subconsious would. If you ever visisted a fake-Facebook, you'd immediately notice that something was wrong if the icon suddenly was green with a blue dot in it, for instance.

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

#580

Post by joan_lm »

TheKarateKid wrote: post #423
slenk wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two prominent examples noted in the bug: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are different, http://www.pool.ntp.org and http://pool.ntp.org are different. Like, big companies run separate servers on the two domains. That's besides the fact where if you have www.example.www.example.com, it rewrites to example.example.com.

Just because a major bank and government organization use an unusual domain configuration, it doesn't mean that it is good practice.

but showing an incorrect url is a bad practice
Post reply on HN