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

851–860 of 919 posts

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

#851

Post by krn »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #849
krn wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google cache links aren't served from `amp.yoursite.com` That's not where things are going, according to your own source from the previous comment: > Our approach uses one component of the emerging Web Packaging technologies—technologies that also support a range of other use cases. This component allows a publisher to sign an HTTP exchange (a request/response pair), which then allows a caching server to do the wor…

Yes, once the Web Package Standard is finalized and implemented then AMP pages will indeed use the normal `amp.` URLs. But at that point, what would be your concern with hiding `amp.`? That's no worse than hiding `m.`; it's just another subdomain which serves a different version of the same content. Heck, sites could serve their amp pages on `m.` domains if they wanted to; the actual subdomain they decide to use is i…

Seeing "amp." in the URL meant that it's not a "full version" of the site. Google wants to remove the separation for the end user, so that all publishers would serve their content through Google Cache. And that's a big concern to me, since it means, the entire web will be served from a single company's database.

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

#852

Post by mrec »

wstuartcl wrote: post #847
mrec wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if serious, but no. Anyone can copy a favicon; the point of an identicon is that it's generated from the domain name, so subverting it would require an attacker to find a hash collision with a visually similar domain.

Yeah, cause moving from a text domain with no collision possible to some sort of collision prone visual system to ensure are able to understand the domain they are viewing seems like a great idea. FFS, if users cant see that somedomainname.com is different than somedomanname.com how does a randomized image of the domain name based on a hash solve this.

I'm not saying it's a good idea. I don't think it is. But it's not just a favicon.

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

#853

Post by abalone »

wwweston wrote: post #748
abalone wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm noticing despite the invocation of vague concepts of progress and usability... you haven't articulated any particular case for how this represents either. I literally began my comment by citing this: ‘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...’ It takes only a very small amount of thought and empathy with the average user to…

> I literally began my comment by citing this: That comment seems to be a rebuttal to the point you're attempting to make. It'd seem more apt to say you brought it in to interrogate it, rather than to say you "cited" it, and beyond rhetorical frustration ("why would you do this?"), it's not clear to me that you engaged it at all. > It takes only a very small amount of thought and empathy with the average user to unde…

Are you ok, man? Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen the only thing approaching a concrete example of a problem is the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately.

And your analogy betrays fundamentally confused thinking. Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting the city or state. The only address this would "break" is a building with different tenants operating out of "123 ABC St, 1st floor" and "123 ABC St", which is a misconfigured building if you could even find an example of that.

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

#854

Post by Ajedi32 »

krn wrote: post #851
Ajedi32 wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, once the Web Package Standard is finalized and implemented then AMP pages will indeed use the normal `amp.` URLs. But at that point, what would be your concern with hiding `amp.`? That's no worse than hiding `m.`; it's just another subdomain which serves a different version of the same content. Heck, sites could serve their amp pages on `m.` domains if they wanted to; the actual subdomain they decide to use is i…

Seeing "amp." in the URL meant that it's not a "full version" of the site. Google wants to remove the separation for the end user, so that all publishers would serve their content through Google Cache. And that's a big concern to me, since it means, the entire web will be served from a single company's database.

> Seeing "amp." in the URL meant that it's not a "full version" of the site.

Yes, but once again that's no different from `m.`.

> And that's a big concern to me, since it means, the entire web will be served from a single company's database.

Are we talking about before or after the Web Package Standard is implemented here?

If before, then your concerns about the URL aren't applicable because `amp.` links aren't served from the Google cache (only `cdn.ampproject.org` links). If after, then the content isn't "served from a single company's database" anymore; it's served using a decentralized and open standard for cross-origin server push.

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

#855

Post by krn »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #854
krn wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing "amp." in the URL meant that it's not a "full version" of the site. Google wants to remove the separation for the end user, so that all publishers would serve their content through Google Cache. And that's a big concern to me, since it means, the entire web will be served from a single company's database.

> Seeing "amp." in the URL meant that it's not a "full version" of the site. Yes, but once again that's no different from `m.`. > And that's a big concern to me, since it means, the entire web will be served from a single company's database. Are we talking about before or after the Web Package Standard is implemented here? If before, then your concerns about the URL aren't applicable because `amp.` links aren't serve…

> If after, then the content isn't "served from a single company's database" anymore; it's served using a decentralized and open standard for cross-origin server push.

Does this mean that Google will no longer rank higher those, who implement AMP and serve through Google Cache, than those who don't?

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

#856

Post by _kevinspencer »

vidarh wrote: post #755
masswerk wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That time has never existed. Some did separate things that way, many did not.

That time absolutely existed. Was common. Source: lived through it.

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

#857

Post by Ajedi32 »

krn wrote: post #855
Ajedi32 wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seeing "amp." in the URL meant that it's not a "full version" of the site. Yes, but once again that's no different from `m.`. > And that's a big concern to me, since it means, the entire web will be served from a single company's database. Are we talking about before or after the Web Package Standard is implemented here? If before, then your concerns about the URL aren't applicable because `amp.` links aren't serve…

> If after, then the content isn't "served from a single company's database" anymore; it's served using a decentralized and open standard for cross-origin server push. Does this mean that Google will no longer rank higher those, who implement AMP and serve through Google Cache, than those who don't?

Yes. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/standardizing-lesso...

> Based on what we learned from AMP, we now feel ready to take the next step and work to support more instant-loading content not based on AMP technology in areas of Google Search designed for this, like the Top Stories carousel. This content will need to follow a set of future web standards and meet a set of objective performance and user experience criteria to be eligible.

Furthermore, once the Web Package Standard is finalized, the "Google Cache" won't exist anymore, at least not in the same way it does now.

The Web Package Standard allows any web page which supports origin signed responses to be served via cross-origin server push from any server that supports HTTP/2. So Google will probably still cache and push pages via their own infrastructure when you visit those pages from your Google search results, but the actual content being served will be fully controlled by the original publisher and behave exactly as if your browser received the page directly from the publisher's server.

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

#858

Post by pwg »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #701
pwg wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be really surprised. There are still people that do exactly what the grandparent comment relates, today, in 2018.

"Less common" isn't "doesn't exist".

Yes, but I suspect it is far more common (I have no evidence to supply however) than the grandparent comment appears to imply.

We (the HN crowd) can easily get caught in a 'bubble' where because we known the details, and those with whom we typically associate also know the details, that we extrapolate those observations to conclude that "most people" know the details.

But until one's been in a situation of providing support or training for a diverse user group, one does not see just how little technical knowledge the "average joe" (a set of which we the HN crowd are very much not a member of) has of these things. The "average joe"'s level of technical knowledge is astonishingly low compared to the HN crowd's level of the same.

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

#859

Post by sherman_google »

kmlx wrote: post #730
_pmf_ wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's probably the reason for this utterly bizarre change.

isn't it because urls are Number 1 for phishing thou? wouldn't removing urls altogether and move towards full identity checks be better for the web? and relying on citibank singapore to hire the right people to fix their website... never going to happen.

> wouldn't removing urls altogether and move towards full identity checks be better for the web?

Hey we'd be open to it, but we'd really prefer to have an RFC to read...

Instead, we got a quiet auto-update, without patch notes.

Good bye, open web. It was fun while it lasted.

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

#860

Post by remram »

Groxx wrote: post #774
ozfive wrote: post #43

This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.

Upvoted from Firefox. Only reason I use Chrome nowadays is when apps launch it directly (whereupon I strongly consider uninstalling them) or when work requires it (... which is utterly ridiculous, and very likely why our web rendering performance and consistency is utter trash ).

Hangouts and GotoMeeting are the only things I open in Chrome. I'm also completely sold on Tree Style Tabs, and I don't think I could now live without...
Post reply on HN