Again, “see above” please
You lost me. See what?
I am only afraid Firefox will soon follow lead. Unfortunately Mozilla has played way too many times copycat in the recent years.
That’s the point and I hope they keep it. Companies pay a lot of money for EV certs as it is a trust thing. And not that easy to fake as a DV.
I for my self don’t like all this changes. Starting from the design, not showing www anymore and removing the padlock. Sure it’s negated and you’ll get a clear warning when a site is not secured, but…
I will direct you to read this:
EV certs do not have more intrinsic trust than DV ones. You can create an entity with the same name pretty easily, plus users do not know the difference.
Maybe in the future their will be a option to change the settings in the http header?
Something to show www/m or not
I really doubt that will ever happen.
But wouldn’t it be weird to only let the user decide if they may see the www/m and only enable it via flags?
Its weird to hide that information in the first place.
They want to push sites without www? Alright, if you really must do that giving www-less sites a better ranking but leave the FQDN alone.
They don’t want to push sites without www, they remove it because it clutters the UI usually without any reason for it being there.
See this for more background info:
Sorry, not buying into that argument
I don’t really get why they would want to push websites without www, even their homepage has it! My only gripe is removing the www and m subdomains while not being the lowest level subdomain.
I for one think this is a horrible idea. Stripping information out about where I am is not helpful in the least. I recognize this will peg me as a ‘old fart’ but “the internet” <> “www”. In fact “www” ==== “www” and that’s where your fancy HTML belongs; so hiding that is beyond stupid. All you kids and your new fangled word wide web browsers need to STAY OFF MY LAWN.
I didn’t like Mosaic when it came out and I still mourn the loss of Gopher… some of us are still using 1200baud modems over here.
Wow, I didn’t even think you could browse the forums with Lynx, but I guess @cscharff proved me wrong.
While I agree with you, one can argue that port 80 on a naked domain should be enough to denominate it as “web”. So I wouldnt go as far as saying hosting a website on a naked domain is inherently wrong. But as for hiding the hostname, well I guess I have made my stance pretty clear at this point
My only issue is how it decides to remove the www - I also explained this on the chromium.org thread, but I feel like it should only hide the
www when there’s a 301 redirect from
Well…it looks like they rolled that one back.
Maybe it’s just me, but I actually prefer the non-www version. A domain shouldn’t need a “www” to tell you it’s a website. The website is loading, so it’s obviously a website. We largely still use www because of habit and tradition.
When the web was young, it wasn’t the defacto default service of an IP with an A record. It was just another service alongside FTP, telnet, gopher and smtp. In this day and age, a public domain is probably going to be a website, and it’s a safe assumption that ftp is rarely used for non-administration tasks. Gopher is a niche, telnet is rarely used over WAN, and should be far rarer, and smtp is largely set-and-forget by the people whom actually use that domain for sending. Inbound email is an MX record, anyhow, so it doesn’t affect getting to a site.
I can’t imagine having to email [email protected] to actually send them an email, and I think it’s equally silly to have to define www.cnn.com to go to CNN’s website. And the reality is, if I type cnn.com, a webserver has to redirect the traffic to www.cnn.com anyway. From a UX perspective, the www just worsens the signal-to-noise ratio of a URL. So sure, get rid of it, or hide it anyway. We’re past needing it, so let’s drop the needless tradition that doesn’t help anybody.
As for m., you care less about a URL on a mobile device, and the industry is going responsive anyway.