Live data from Hacker News

Google wants to get rid of URLs but doesn’t know what to use instead

arstechnica.com

11–13 of 13 posts

Re: Google wants to get rid of URLs but doesn’t know what to use instead

#11

Syntax highlighting is all I think they should do. If they want to color "http:" red to show that it's insecure, fine, but don't hide it entirely. In 69, the version that just came out, they have begun to sometimes hide the subdomain. It threw me for a loop, because someone sent me a link to the mobile version of Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/ but the URL bar said just: https://en.wikipedia.org/ The page layo…

I agree that syntax highlighting is the only thing they should do and I think that hiding technical details will inevitably lead to its own security risks.

The same has happened with Microsoft hiding file extensions from users in Windows by default, which leads to malware hidden in party.jpg.com email attachments or similar things. It's one of the first things I turn off, when I'm on a new Windows machine.

Re: Google wants to get rid of URLs but doesn’t know what to use instead

#12
I believe that getting rid of URLs will further take control away from users of the web towards search engines, which is likely Google's actual intension behind these efforts. If you have a full URL that you can write down on paper, there's still a way to get around the search engine. Once we lose the technical detail of URLs, that won't work anymore.
Post reply on HN