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

801–810 of 919 posts

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

#801

Post by tialaramex »

masswerk wrote: post #727
pests wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers are magic to the majority. I bring up in a previous reply that mirrors, and now lights, pedals, and other controls, that these are directly user-facing and must be interacted with in order to get anything done. Even knowing there is an engine that might need engine-y things like water and oil. But where is the requirement a user knows about URLS in order to use the web? Way back when we had AOL keywords. No…

But why is it that computers are that magical? Computers have been now around for nearly 70 years. It's a technology as new as airplanes were in 1980. (If we include digital accounting machines with storage, they have been around even before the first flight of the Wright brothers, they are even older than any living person.) Computers are also the means by which many, if not most, are dealing with for a living on a…

Without prejudicing the rest of your points, computers are very unlike most inventions. Computation is extremely powerful, our only working definition for what it is even is relies on an intuition, called the Church-Turing thesis, that essentially says the computers are doing categorically the same thing we are, but doesn't purport explain why that's so. It looks observably true and that's the best we have.

So, it's entirely unfair to suppose that since people got used to having tap water and so we are surprised if a person can't operate a tap, therefore they should be used to the entire complexity of computation by now.

You definitely _should not_ count machines that aren't actually computers ("digital accounting machines with storage") since those aren't Church-Turing, they're just another trivial machine like a calculator. Instead, compare the other working example we have of full-blown Church-Turing: Humans. Why aren't people somehow used to everything about people yet? People have been around a long time too. Why isn't everyone prepared for every idiosyncratic or even nonsensical behaviour from other people, they've surely had long enough right?

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

#802

Post by normo12 »

lvs wrote: post #238
crispyporkbites wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a shoddy implementation on Citibank's part. Google are just fucking the web over so we all have to fit their structure. This is standard incumbent behaviour, they are drawing up the moat bridge, inch by inch.

I think the downvotes here are uncalled-for. This is correct. Google is leveraging a dominant market position to make seemingly frivolous changes that will ultimately benefit them commercially. Come on, you know where this is going: They are going to hide amp subdomain, so you don't know if you're looking at AMP or the actual destination. And then suddenly the whole world funnels through AMP.

Hopefully we'll see some antitrust action from the EU over this if they do drop the URL bar.

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

#804

Post by usaar333 »

dTal wrote: post #793
sofaofthedamned wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree about the 'm.domain' convention; it's good and useful. I like the ability to retrieve a mobile site on my desktop, and vice versa. Sometimes I'll be on a site that's difficult to read on mobile, and speculatively try the 'm.domain' - often it will work. When the site itself tries to autodetect what device I'm using, it often makes a poor decision that is not subject to appeal.

On the downside, the m subdomain makes for terrible social media posting.

E.g. a commenter using Wikipedia's mobile site posts a link to said page and desktop viewers are unexpectedly taken to the mobile, not desktop, page.

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

#806

Post by Avamander »

snsr wrote: post #800
lucideer wrote: post #789

Even if you believe this is in theory a good idea, in practice it's clear that Chrome has implemented this extremely badly. As Comment 5 on that issue points out: > This does appear to be inconsistent/improperly implemented. Why is www hidden twice if the domain is "www.www.2ld.tld"? [...] If the root zone is a 301 to the "www" version, removing "www" from the omnibox would be acceptable since the server indicated th…

Even dumber, from another comment- > Another case I ran into: > "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com".

And people like github.com/m can now host something and it'll look as `github.io` hosted it.

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

#807

Post by brod »

relevant quotes from a recent Wired article "Google Wants to Kill the URL"

> "People have a really hard time understanding URLs" - Adrienne Porter Felt, Chrome's engineering manager.

> "But I do know that whatever we propose is going to be controversial." - Parisa Tabriz, director of engineering at Chrome.

https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/

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

#808

Post by da_chicken »

Nadya wrote: post #300
trocadero wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> http://pool.ntp.org/ takes me to an "It works!" default Apache 2 page for an Ubuntu installation. As the comment in the issue describes, http://pool.ntp.org/ takes you to a random ntp server. Either way, the ask was for a difference in www.example.com vs example.com. Not a difference in www.pool.example.com vs pool.example.com. In the latter case, the different subdomains will still be shown (AFAIK). >Even if you u…

>In the latter case, the different subdomains will still be shown (AFAIK). http://www.pool.example.com displays as http://pool.example.com Here's a gif: https://vgy.me/61I0DA.gif For fun I'm going to set up a www.www.www.www.www.www.www.www.www record. http://www.www.www.www.www.www.www.www.www.www.example.com shows as example.com E: I'll add it to my certs later but I did it: https://www.www.www.www.www.www.www.www.…

Wow. You could do some pretty amazing spoofing with the www.com domain, then.

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

#809

Post by basch »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #439
basch wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if anything, it should be time to declare that its a bit insane to expect lay people to be able to read from right to left and left to right concurrently, and understand all the delimiting punctuation correctly, along with unicode. its time to restructure url rendering to be right to left, and combine delimiters. dashes, periods, slashes, and subdomains and hundreds of tlds have made it too confusing. https://www.goo…

I think re-ordering like that would actually benefit technical users more, but it's probably too late to make such a change. I don't think we'd need that change for browsers to put the parts they consider most relevant in bold. That logic is simple enough right now.

really we are talking about rendering, right? not actually changing the protocol itself? (:lock: = lock unicode/emoji = secure http)

:lock:/com/GOOGLE/www/maps/hawaii

I am a strong proponent of the URL being part of the user interface. I should be able to manipulate what i request of a service by modifying the url. The text in the url should mean something.

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

#810

Post by [deleted] »

hunter2_ wrote: post #646
markovbot wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the second level domain is far more important than the subdomain. The second level. www.example.com and example.com usually have the same contents, but are always controlled by the same group.

It's not true that the second level and third level are always controlled by the same group (most of .uk for example). You can put an SOA record anywhere.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN