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

891–900 of 919 posts

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

#891

Post by deanCommie »

masswerk wrote: post #454
UncleMeat wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Arguably, the most sincere problems arise from mixed alphabets with Unicode domains and look-alike characters/glyphs. No way. The most sincere problem is that hostnames do not enforce any binding to a real world identity that users can understand (nobody inspects certs) and that the most trustworthy component of a hostname is the second to the last section (right before ".com"). Humans tend to look at the front of…

Regarding the parsing of URLs, this is a common, but mostly counterintuitive argument: Take for example names in most western countries, addresses (street-zip-city-country), etc. Most of our most important identifiers work this way. Regarding lacking binding of identity: On the other hand, this has been one of the most important features of the web, from the very beginning. Also, there is no way to setup a system, wh…

Except this is already broken by multi-part TLDs.

foo.com is owned by "foo" foo.evil.com is owned by "evil" foo.co.uk is NOT owned by "co"

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

#892

Post by bb101 »

rckclmbr wrote: post #259
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.

I switched to firefox a year ago. Its a little slower, but im a lot happier. Ive been trying to degoogle as much as reasonable. I moved to fastmail as well. Still using an android, but would switch if a reasonable alternative that wasnt iphone came up. Im not paranoid or a privacy nut, just think google is too involved in my life.

I was in exactly the same camp as you a year ago. Then I played with a hand-me-down iPhone 6s and couldn't believe how much more pleasant it was to use iOS than to use Android (Nougat at the time). Having owned an iPhone 3G and 5, my memories were of a restrictive OS and a dumb Siri but both have really has come along since. I made the switch and can't imagine going back to Android now.

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

#893

Post by nintendo1889 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #836
krn wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this Chrome update is about hiding the "amp." subdomain from the original URL. What Google wants to achieve, is to make it impossible for the average user to tell when the entire website is being served from Google Cache.

Google cache links aren't served from `amp.yoursite.com`, they're served from `cdn.ampproject.org`. If you're visiting `amp.yoursite.com`, then the site _isn't_ being served from the Google cache. Also "this Chrome update is about hiding the "amp." subdomain on the original site from the viewer" is patently false since this update _doesn't_ hide `amp.`; only `m.` and `www.`.

Another very real problem is not being able to share the real url rather than an amp link.

Is ampproject Google's website? On amp.google.com I can find the original url for sharing purposes, whereas on ampproject.org urls I can't.

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

#894

Post by a1o »

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…

Can't trivial subdomains just be colored gray and done instead of getting away with them? Also maybe color blue the .com and similar.

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

#895

Post by rhizome »

Already__Taken wrote: post #750
rhizome wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Its weird too because chrome invented to UX when closing lots of tabs not to reflow the browser UI but keep placing their close X under the mouse until you move away. So its like they understood this once and have forgotten.

Have you used the latest Chrome with the redesign? The tab's X no longer has any hover effects, or doesn't seem to.

After the last few days of wondering about this, I see now that hovering over the X makes is ~5% darker.

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

#896

Post by rhizome »

Exuma wrote: post #659
rhizome wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains

This is about Google having a fundamental weakness in product management and UX, giving me the equivalent of a Windows Registry setting to change is not helping, practical as it may be.

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

#897

Post by Ajedi32 »

krn wrote: post #888
Ajedi32 wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't increase Google's ability to track you at all. If you click a link on a Google search results page they already know you visited that site; them serving the initial page load via a cross-origin server push changes nothing. It also doesn't give them any more control over the web, since the page contents are still strictly controlled by the original publisher (and that's cryptographically enforced). So aga…

Google now only knows the first page I visit from its search results. After this update, Google will be able to follow me across the entire web, because it will the one who serves it to me. How is that not a concern? Are you seriously claiming that the largest ad company in the world is interested in decentralizing the web? Its blog article you linked to yourself says, that the goal of this entire initiative is to in…

> After this update, Google will be able to follow me across the entire web, because it will the one who serves it to me.

That's not how it works. Only the initial page is loaded over cross-origin server push. After you actually navigate to that page you're no longer on Google's site (which is why the URL bar is able to show the domain of the site you just navigated to instead of still showing google.com), so obviously they don't have any enhanced ability to monitor what you do after that point.

> Are you seriously claiming that the largest ad company in the world is interested in decentralizing the web?

The general web is already decentralized. This is about decentralizing AMP. And yes, decentralizing AMP is exactly what Google is doing here.

> the goal of this entire initiative is to increase the usage of AMP by "displaying better AMP URLs"

Yes, and they're accomplishing that by pursuing the development of open W3C standards which can be used by anyone. Just like how offline storage on the web started as a feature enabled by [a proprietary plugin developed by Google (Google Gears)][1] until Google pursued the development of open standards to replace it: https://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers-1/ (Check out who the editors are on that draft.)

Google's been following this pattern for over a decade now. They start with a proprietary initiative, then use the lessons learned from that effort to develop open web standards that improve the web for everyone. (I can give maybe a dozen more examples if you still don't believe me.) There's no reason to think AMP will be any different in this regard, especially since Google has already made their intentions on this matter clear.

[1]: https://support.google.com/code/answer/69197?hl=en

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

#898

Post by vidarh »

_kevinspencer wrote: post #856
vidarh wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

No, it didn't. Some separated services that way, but it was never any more necessary than it is now. Source: used to run an ISP through the early days of the web, and collocated services on the same host all the time.

The idea of the commenter I replied to that you 'had to' have a separate host or interface for each service is flat out false.

When people split it, it was over capacity or manageability concerns, but often we also set up separate hostnames for different services just because it was what people expected; often it pointed to the same hosts.

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

#899

Post by vidarh »

jrnichols wrote: post #870
_kevinspencer wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

yep. or ftp (or mail/smtp/whatever) was a single host separate from the web servers, and www was a CNAME to a virtual ip/load balancer. Still separated physically. That time wasn't even that long ago.

The point was that this was always a choice - there has never been a point where it was required. My first ISP back in '93 ran mail, web, ftp and shell accounts on a single pc. So did the ISP I cofounded in 95. It isn't and never has been a technical limitation, but a choice down to what worked for you. Especially as address rewriting firewalls also existed back then, so multiple services pointing to the same external IP in no way implied they had to be the same physical host.

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

#900

Post by jrnichols »

vidarh wrote: post #899
jrnichols wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. or ftp (or mail/smtp/whatever) was a single host separate from the web servers, and www was a CNAME to a virtual ip/load balancer. Still separated physically. That time wasn't even that long ago.

The point was that this was always a choice - there has never been a point where it was required. My first ISP back in '93 ran mail, web, ftp and shell accounts on a single pc. So did the ISP I cofounded in 95. It isn't and never has been a technical limitation, but a choice down to what worked for you. Especially as address rewriting firewalls also existed back then, so multiple services pointing to the same externa…

I wasn't claiming it was a technical limitation or a requirement, just that the time where this happened certainly did exist. Choice or not, the time existed. That was my point. Fair enough.
Post reply on HN