Official: Google Chrome 69 kills off the World Wide Web (in URLs)


#21

Again, “see above” please :wink:


#22

You lost me. See what?


#23

I am only afraid Firefox will soon follow lead. Unfortunately Mozilla has played way too many times copycat in the recent years.


#24

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…


#25

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.


#26

#27

Maybe in the future their will be a option to change the settings in the http header?
Something to show www/m or not


#28

I really doubt that will ever happen.


#29

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?


#30

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.


#31

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:


#32

Sorry, not buying into that argument :slight_smile:


#33

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.


#34

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.


#35

Wow, I didn’t even think you could browse the forums with Lynx, but I guess @cscharff proved me wrong.


#36

Lynx? Netcat!


#37

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 :slight_smile:


#38

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 @ -> www.


#39

Well…it looks like they rolled that one back.


#40

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.