Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox's still an option.
The quality of Firefox on Windows as software is much to be desired. Due to slow loading, I'm considering whatever they call the Microsoft browser today.
Is this still true in Firefox >= 57?
Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
421–430 of 733 posts
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#422While this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it…
I'm already annoyed by the hassle it has become to copy a substring of the URL into the clipboard, due to the schemes being hidden. Nothing has been won by hiding http(s):// as well as the www subdomain.
It is frustrating isn’t it
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
All WWW was supposed to mean was HTTP accessible. Now that every domain why should a user using a http* browser have to specify that they intend to access it via http* when they have no other choice? Either the server responds or it doesn't. www.foo.com and foo.com both return http traffic then they are both part of the world wide web. The specific of how you've decided to run your site or serve your pages is irrelev…
I don't think you get it. www.example.com and example.com might be two different websites . If you want the content at www.example.com and you go to example.com, then may not get the content that you wanted. One might be a shop selling shoes and the other might be a shop selling hats. If you want a hat and you go to the one selling shoes then you're going to be disappointed. 'www.' doesn't 'mean was HTTP accessible'.…
Anything might be two different websites.
You could send different websites based on what port the request comes from. But doing so would be bad and wrong, and showing the user the outgoing port is definitely not necessary.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other day I heard Firefox described as Google's antitrust lawsuit insurance...
Hah, that actually makes me happy as a no-break Firefox user since 2003. At least that means Google will continue to support Firefox independently for as long as they're in the browser business.
They also support Bing
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you get it. www.example.com and example.com might be two different websites . If you want the content at www.example.com and you go to example.com, then may not get the content that you wanted. One might be a shop selling shoes and the other might be a shop selling hats. If you want a hat and you go to the one selling shoes then you're going to be disappointed. 'www.' doesn't 'mean was HTTP accessible'.…
Anything might be two different websites. You could send different websites based on what port the request comes from. But doing so would be bad and wrong, and showing the user the outgoing port is definitely not necessary.
> You could send different websites based on what port the request comes from.
But that's you controlling that, as the person running the website.
When it's the user controlling it, by setting which domain to visit, that's in their control, so they need to see it in their UI.
If you're going to reduce to the absurdity of 'anyone could serve anything from anywhere' then why show a domain at all? ebay.com could serve me the content of google.com, so let's not bother with domain names? Is that your argument?
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't mean it's behavior is the same.
True, but then I’m not sure Mozilla would be able to survive if Google stopped their deal with them due to say, adding ad-blocking to Firefox by default. Not the same, but it certainly influences the direction of FF.
> but it certainly influences the direction of FF
I don't think Mozilla's trying to please Google in any way. Google's keeping Firefox around to try to avoid the appearance of a total monopoly.
But Mozilla's behavior certainly is influenced by trying to find alternative business models, sometimes not perhaps with the best results, (Mr Robot promotion everyone), I still think it's worth using it over Chrome.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
The URL bar takes up a huge amount of screen real estate and is a piece of information that the user almost never needs once they have confirmed they navigated successfully to the desired page. Developers are a special case user and capable of handling advanced UIs that hide information until it is needed. It's iconic but it's a UI space resource hog. To improve browser experience, sometimes one has to be willing to…
I'm sorry to say, but your a bit naive if you think they're doing it for cosmetic reasons.
1) I'm not generally in the habit of prognosticating all of the reasons a corporation the size of Google tries to do something, especially not when there's an apparent and obvious win possible from the change itself. Minimizing the URL bar leaves room for other things on the page, including chrome extensions and, possibly, page content.
2) UI improvements are not "cosmetic reasons," they directly translate to ease and efficiency of task completion. As a UI engineer, hearing my category of work called "cosmetic changes" can be, quite frankly, exhausting. If someone were to halve the default font sizes on all browsers, would we consider that a mere "cosmetic change" or would it be a change that would have direct and immediate impact on people's ability to accomplish tasks?
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. That is network effect. As the smaller vendor, it's incumbent upon Mozilla to break it. Expecting individual devs to do it collectively when it really isn't in their selfish interests is waiting for a unicorn to appear.
> As the smaller vendor, it's incumbent upon Mozilla to break it. That's kind of impossible to do for a smaller vendor without wider developer cooperation. I remember Mozilla only started to breach IE's dominance once devs were so sick of IE that they installed Firefox on their mom's computer despite tons of sites being made for IE. It's possible for something like it to happen again with Chrome, but less likely sinc…
But that's the thing, if Google is responsive enough to implementing new technologies and improving their browser, there's no reason for most web devs to advocate for an alternative browser. A (high-quality) monoculture is actually much much easier on most web devs, because it minimizes the number of browsers they have to support for quirks.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about reducing phishing? Seems more obvious
Why assume good intentions when economic incentives (which we already know they have) already explain it?
What are the other browsers' intentions then, who are doing almost the same thing? What about the economic incentive of generally increasing trust in the web and ecommerce, which is highly relevant to their core business?
Also consider the sibling comment about AMP - looks like they already have special behaviour for that so this is barely relevant.
Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is a trick for at least chrome before 85, where if you install the google-made extension "suspicious site reporter" it will show the full url including protocol (which you can't even do with flags so it tampers with something internally which means they don't have to do this at all)
I highly doubt a non-default extension has extra permissions that aren't available to regular extensions... Can anyone reproduce this?
The extension ID is literally hard coded in the code of the scheme hiding code. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:c...