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

491–500 of 919 posts

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

#491

Post by nofunsir »

josefx wrote: post #420
download13 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're always going to need to see URLs. They're not going away. They're just talking about a better default view to show the user relevant information about where they are, which would be a good thing. Being generous, maybe half of users can look at a URL and immediately identify the domain they are on. That's terrible, and goes a long way to explaining why phishing attacks are so prevalent. I'm actually pretty excit…

> We're always going to need to see URLs. I can see the future now: User enters his target (mybank) into the Google search bar on his Google Android device, the device opens Google Chrome with the Google amp page form mybank already loaded. The user never has to worry about urls or where exactly he is entering his banking information and login critera. Google makes everything a clean and seamless experience and user…

Add eyeball tracking into this mix, and we can "allow" users to "experience" unskippable ads.

In all seriousness, I have no doubt this is due largely to Google's frustration at Ad Blockers. If there is no URL, and you're in the Google Garden protocol, there is no way to block ads, or at least no way to NOT download them.

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

#493

Post by qu4z-2 »

Multicomp wrote: post #319
md_ wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t Firefox and Safari also have a single bar for searches? Yet neither company runs a search engine. I don’t suppose it’s possible this is just better for most users?

Firefox will allow you to search via the address bar, but it still has a separate search bar to the right by default.

Also, if you go into about:config and turn off keyword.enabled, the address bar will no longer search.

It's very useful if you don't want to Google internal/client URLs just because you accidentally copied a space at the start or the hostname doesn't resolve in your current environment, etc.

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

#494

Post by nofunsir »

geofft wrote: post #112
jwr wrote: post #30

This is idiotic and harmful. We already lost information about the protocol, because somebody believed it is "too complex" for users. Now we're losing other parts of the URL. It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me? It used to signify that a "known authority" certified that I'm connected to whatever I see in the URL bar. But now that browsers take liberties wit…

> It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me That's why they're getting rid of it. https://blog.chromium.org/2018/05/evolving-chromes-security-...

The team that implemented this change, also talk about how women confuse the padlock with an icon of a purse...

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/googles-chrome-hackers-flip-we...

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

#495

Post by akira2501 »

abalone wrote: post #393

> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". 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... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…

> If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement.

This is a false dichotomy. There are tons of ways to improve the implementation without just hacking parts of the URL out of the "omnibar."

You could split the omnibar and/or allow it to be resized so both pieces of information can be shown. You can use differential color highlighting and/or text formatting to convey which parts google considers "trusted." You could implement an "expert mode" button somewhere that turns all of these "improvements" off. You could add an extra field that shows security-critical information not just about the URL but about the resulting connection(s) to the host.

This is hardly exhaustive, which is also a good description for Google's effort on this one.

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

#496

Post by jlg23 »

abalone wrote: post #393

> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". 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... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…

> Like, who actually runs separate HTTP servers on example.com and www.example.com anyway? Everyone is hyperventilating over contrived "the principle of it all" examples.

I do. Over and over again. Having been doing that for 2 decades, and with a limited budget, I require things like SNI[1] to work. But of course, I could just triple the tech budget...

EDIT: And wrt "Time for a modicum of historical perspective." - please give it to me. I am keen to learn what I did wrong all the time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication

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

#497

Post by sofaofthedamned »

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…

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 type it in the browser. Most decent websites revert "www." or without to whichever is the canonical version; the one without should be that tbf.

The 'm.' is ridiculous too and ruins shareability. If the link was the bare domain, and the frontend does any switch that's needed, we'd all be better off.

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

#498

Post by [deleted] »

jancsika wrote: post #477

This is AWESOME! Thank you Chrome! On a completely unrelated topic, there is a bug I'm noticing: ICANN doesn't allow emojis in TLDs. What? That's ridiculous-- I can put them in the main part of the domain name along with an enormous number of cute homoglyphs. So why not smileys and homoglyphs in TLDs? If users can deal with smileys in the main domain that tells where the site is, surely they can deal with them in the…

[deleted]

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

#500

Post by int0x80 »

lytedev wrote: post #410
int0x80 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not only obscuring. This is plain breaking tons of stuff for people.

Can I ask what's broken? I understand it's displayed incorrectly in the worst cases and obscurely in most, but broken?

Well, I understood it did not only display differently, but make the actual request to the stripped URL.

I don't know.

Post reply on HN