Thank you to whomever submitted this. My main annoyance is that when I want to go to a subdomain, I'll typically start typing foo.domain.com, but now the browser sets it to www.foo.domain.com. Annoying.
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
71–80 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#72Glad I don't use Chrome. Hope this doesn't happen too Firefox or that'll be another entry in my /etc/portage/patches
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#73It begins. I saw this this morning, and thought it was something that was coming in the next few versions, not right now . https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/ WTF? People get angry when you just move their cheese without notice.
What they're talking about in that article is more dramatic than this.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#74Yo, this is... going too far, c'mon now. While sure, www seems odd now, it's still a subdomain and we're inching into territory of obscuring things that matter for small gains in end-user perception that aren't _that_ impactful.
Why does www matter?
Same exact reason that api.domain.com or beta.domain.com matters - you're on a subdomain, not the root domain. That the internet and world at large made www the "kind of" root domain in many cases is an unfortunate thing, but I've not seen a modern server configuration that doesn't handle this case by default.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#75This 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…
99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)
So they can be hacked in serene bliss. A stupid decision.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#76I stumbled upon this bug too, and here's why this is not okay to me:
For a couple of hours, I thought Citibank Singapore's website was down.
If one tries accessing citibank.com.sg, there's no redirect to the www. subdomain. (That's still the case, if anyone wants to try.)
If Chrome didn't hide the www., I would have been able to tell from Chrome's search/address bar that the various banking services that I've been accessing were all on the www. subdomain.
While that is shoddy implementation on Citibank's part, hiding the www. most definitely didn't help with the troubleshooting process.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#77This 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…
Given the adoption rate of SSL, I imagine the padlock itself will become useless even without Chrome's changes. Does it mean anything if almost every website has it?
The clearly announced intent of at least Mozilla and Google (and I'd assume Apple and Microsoft but I don't pay as much attention) is to focus on highlighting the insecure state because that has much better security UX. Labeling one site you visit today "Not Secure" stands out. With luck it might be enough that you don't type in your credit card details.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#78This 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…
99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)
>The change was made for them, not for you
Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#79If the browser uses some technique to detect that www.domain.com is functionally identical to domain.com for a given domain, then I don't see a serious problem with this. But if they are short of that certainty, they're obscuring a critical part of the URL, and harming usability (e.g., if I want to jot down a site's URL for later use, I might get something unexpected).
That's not the case. I run a server that does not respond to "www." If I enter "www.myserver.com" into the address bar, I get a DNS lookup failure, but the address bar is now showing "myserver.com." That's damn confusing, and this is an idiotic default on Chrome's part.
That seems like an edge case worth submitting a separate bug for.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about the principle. www is a valid subdomain. Browsers are supposed to be as unopinionated as possible since they are browsers , not mediators, and their job is to implement the standards of the web.
IE did this years ago too, as I recall. I don't know if Edge still does. Safari also won't show "www" until you click on the location bar, but it'll show once you click.
Safari doesn't show you the url at all until you click either; so the URL bar is just a domain indicator -- in that case, it seems less objectionable that it doesn't show the FQDN, but instead something different -- copying the url from a screenshot was bound for disappointment anyway.