We had this way before :)
What are your thoughts on Chrome's new implementation?
Find out more here: theregister.co.uk/2019/07/31/chrome_omnibox_subdomain_chop
Pathduck last edited by Pathduck
I absolutely loathe this kind of hiding parts of URLs to make them "easier to understand". This was one of the reasons I never started using Chrome, because it by default had this behaviour, and hid the option to disable it.
The full URL must always be visible for security reasons, and users must always be able to easily see the URL to understand the page's location in a server, and edit it if they want. If users feel a full web URL is too complicated and ugly then they should read up on how the web works and understand the URL is there for a reason.
I hope Vivaldi never thinks of implementing something like this, at least without an option for those who absolutely feel a need to hide crucial information to make it "prettier".
I believe it's clear by now Google wants to make the web into a proprietary application they control, and then start charging monthly fees for it.
@varsha Shouldn't that have been:
As long as the checkbox in Settings, Address Bar, Show Full Address, still shows the full address I don't think hiding https://www is any worse than hiding https://
Most users pay no attention to the URL anyhow. They just go to their bookmarked sites or follow links.
Vivaldi needs to use other methods to provide security and privacy for users, and not rely on them reading the URL field in the address bar and understanding the implications of what that says or does not say.
Pathduck last edited by
@varsha Shouldn't that have been:
Yes, it's very true. The host www could serve completely different content than the theregister.co.uk host. Also omitting the trailing slash from a URL is a massive mistake - how is the poor server to know if the client is asking for a directory or a file?
@Pathduck In forums, I usually post user-friendly links like this:
See this Article on the Register UK
Semenov-Sherin last edited by
I do not see the problem:
- I hate websites with "www" (like YouTube, Facebook or Instagram). Do we really need to see "www" in URL?
- HTTPS is more important, but how many users check the URL? Many browsers hide full URL of the page show URL of the website only. It mean you need to click on addressbar to see HTTPS (or HTTP). Or you can just look on lock icon. And many websites already have HTTPS version. Even HTTPS Everywhere is not so useful as before.
- But "m"... Come on! Sometimes we really need to open mobile websites and some websites give us this ability. Does it mean that Chrome users will not me able to open m.facetook.com or m.twitter.com on desktop?
Chopping m. or www. can be non-sense. If there is different content for f.ex.
example.orgi want to see the www. If subdomains give me different content, i want to see the correct used domain in address field.
Glad I don't use Chrome. Haven't for years.
Hadden89 last edited by Hadden89
I really prefer to see and manage complete URLs.
But for people who like chopped ones could be a nice option.
Pathduck last edited by
Do we really need to see "www" in URL?
Yes we do. HTTP is a client-server protocol, which means the client needs a host to connect to, as well as a TCP port (based on the protocol). These days sites use DNS aliases and load balancers to avoid having a single machine serving their content, but the old technical foundations of the web are still present (fortunately). Being able to access a web site with only the domain is a relatively recent feature,.
A good browser should also support more than just HTTP, for instance FTP and Gopher sites are still served on the internet. Since these live on different TCP ports, a host can serve several protocols.
Sometimes we really need to open mobile websites and some websites give us this ability.
Exactly, taking away or hiding the ability for users to distinguish the mobile site and the 'web' site is taking away their choice of what content to access. These days with more sites using flexible design, mobile sites are pretty much redundant, but site owners should still have a choice of serving different content on the 'm' site if they want. If the host portion of the URL is hidden how are users to tell the difference?
As long as there exists the possibility of mapping the 2 different domain name variants (with and without WWW) to different IPs or services, users need to see where they are.
Some domains are setup with WWW for serving a web site, and without WWW for access to email or the server software.
Every time there is a call from Google to obscure the reality of URLs for the sake of making them less obscure, I see an immediate vector open for misdirection and mischief.
We have enough trouble with clever use of encoded URLs and crafty use of Unicode.
Google want to hide everything not the central domain name, thus exposing users to higher risk of being on a fake site and not knowing.
Relying on a valid cert for authenticity is no use to newbies that have no idea where in the cert to look for the correct domain info.
Who issued the cert seems to be more important to display than which domains it is meant for (am I alone in seeing this as the wrong way round?)
Chromium doesn't even use proper OCSP so we have to put up with Googles crappy system (unless you enable it as a policy).
Ultimately this info is UI stuff so can be as optional as needed.
The full info should be on by default, and easy to change.
Personally I prefer to know exactly what I just trod in, so even favour seeing more info, such as a flag for geo-ip and the ability to see the IP of the domain I am on.