1. 26

Chrome now reverting subdomain hiding in url bar, though they are still adamant about hiding www in the next release.

  1. 16

    It also breaks double-click selection in address bar. For example, I’m trying to copy issue number from Github and double-click number in the end of URL to select it. On first click it reveals full URL, with www, which enlarges it, on second click it selects wrong part.

    1. 9

      So they know the feature is widely hated but they are going ahead with it anyway. Guess thats what happens when a company gets too big.

      1. 6

        What is impressive is that there was enough community outrage to get them to back track this time.

        Unfortunately this is exactly what normally happens, X does Y, Z outrage, X backtracks on Y, X waits a suitable amount of time for Z to forget and does Y again. Z have moved on Y happens, X is happy. The outrage cycle may repeat a few times but eventually X always gets what they want, always.

      2. 5

        Neither this post nor https://lobste.rs/s/dtqqih/chrome_now_strips_common_subdomains_e_g has a ready link to why the Chrome team wants to do this. As far as I can tell (and please chime in if you know more), it boils down to an attempt to remove (what the Chrome team considers) redundant information from the UI in order to highlight more critical parts of the origin. It’s my understanding that the www. is targeted here because many pages automatically redirect to/from www. or mirror it entirely, making it not “user-controlled.” It would be nice if someone from the developer relations team explained this change a bit more (with examples).

        A relevant link is https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/enamel#TOC-Eliding-Origin-Names-And-Hostnames.

        1. 5

          I think they’re trying to blur the line from URL and AMP URL. “User Agent” my butt, it’s a Google Agent now.

          I just don’t get it (AMP, Omnibox changes). They’re basically lifting content from publishers, calling it a “privacy benefit”, and going through W3C to make it “standard”. I find this GIF downright misleading.

          I think these changes are very frustrating, even as a Firefox user. Can you imagine if my blog showed pre-loaded Google Search Result Pages (for 1k most common words, or something, &c), changed the URL to show google.com and avoided any traffic to their domains? They’d sue the shit out of me if I didn’t cease & desist. (Didn’t some guy do that? And they blocked his entire domain?) But they have leverage over publishers, who don’t seem to care.

          1. 3

            Most sites redirect but some have completely different things on www and the root. there were a few examples posted on a thread on reddit.

            1. 2

              edirect but some have completely different things on www and the root. there were a few examples posted on a thread on reddit.

              I think some ntp servers will display the webpage on the www and the actual ntp on the root.

              1. 1

                I agree with you, I’m just trying to suss out the particular motivations behind this change given that there isn’t much context around it.

                1. 1

                  That’s true, but enough users already assume that www and the root are equivalent. Sites like that are already broken.

                  And the NTP pool moved their main website off of www.pool.ntp.org and onto (www.)ntppool.org because people kept hitting random third-party servers when they expected to get the pool’s website.

                2. 1

                  I also haven’t seen any argument, convincing or not, about why they want to do this. The irony in it all is that google.com redirects to www.google.com. You’d think if they wanted to get rid of an “ugly” www that they would start with their own domain.

                3. 4

                  Hopefully they only hide www. when it is exactly at the start of the domain name, leaving duplicates and domains in the middle (like notriddle.www.github.io and www.www.lobste.rs) alone.

                  1. 43

                    How about just leaving the whole thing alone? URI/URLs are external identifiers. You don’t change someone’s name because it’s confusing. Such an arrogant move from google.

                    1. 11

                      Because we’re Google. We don’t have to care know better than you.

                      1. 3

                        Eventually the URL bar will be so confusing and arbitrary users will just have to search google for everything.

                        1. 5

                          Which is of course, Google’s plan and intent, all along. Wouldn’t surprise me if they are aiming to remove URLs from the omni bar completely at some point.

                      2. 3

                        It’s the same with Safari on Mac - not only do they hide the subdomain but everything else from the URL root onwards too. Dreadful, and the single worst (/only really bad) thing about Safari’s UI.

                        1. 3

                          You don’t change someone’s name because it’s confusing

                          That’s why they’re going to try to make it a standard.
                          They will probably also want to limit the ports that you can use with the www subdomain, or at least propose that some be hidden, like 8080

                          1. 2

                            Perhaps everyone should now move to w3.* or web.* names just to push back! Serious suggestion.

                          2. 1

                            Indeed, but I still think it is completely unnecessary and I don’t get how this “simplifies” anything

                          Stories with similar links:

                          1. Chromium distributed build client is now open source via stip 4 years ago | 6 points | 1 comment
                          2. Public Key Pinning Being Removed from Chrome via calvin 4 years ago | 9 points | 5 comments
                          3. Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in existing Symantec-issued Certificates via joshuacc 5 years ago | 9 points | no comments
                          4. Chrome Requiring Certificate Transparency in 2017 via jabberwock 5 years ago | 5 points | no comments
                          5. Intent to Implement and Ship: The “system-ui” generic font family via flyingfisch 5 years ago | 1 point | 1 comment