5 ms·
I'm ok with hiding "www.", but it also hides "m." which is sometimes very confusing (I once opened a m.facebook.com link and was very puzzled why it uses the mo
by fireattack 8y ago
I'm ok with hiding "www.", but it also hides "m." which is sometimes very confusing (I once opened a m.facebook.com link and was very puzzled why it uses the mobile site when the URl bar just shows "facebook.com").
- ehsankia 8y agoFacebook aside, don't the majority of sites show you mobile version by looking at headers. Isn't that the whole reason the "Show desktop version" feature even exists in Chrome, to send the desktop header? Very few sites actually use www. vs m. Clearly, in those cases, people aren't "confused" by the fact that they are seeing a mobile version on www., so other than the fact that you're used to Facebook specifically working this way, wouldn't you just send the Desktop header whenever you get mobile and want desktop?
- Nition 8y agoJust speaking for myself, but often people will link to mobile Wikipedia pages, or mobile versions of other sites, and I'll look at the URL first to see if I can change it to a desktop version.
- ehsankia 8y agoThe fact that you have to even do that shows that the m. pattern is bad. The same url should be shareable without having to worry about such things. It should show as mobile on mobile and desktop on desktop, unless you specifically tell it not to.
- derefr 8y ago> Isn't that the whole reason the "Show desktop version" feature even exists in Chrome, to send the desktop header? This is indeed what it does; I wish it did more! Specifically, when visiting responsive pages on a phone where the mobile-viewport-size layout is just 100% broken, I’d love if “Request Desktop Site” actually set the viewport to be that of a desktop browser, and then set a low CSS/viewport zoom level to compensate. I want the dual of what happens when I set the “simulate a phone of X size” option in Chrome’s inspector!
- kccqzy 8y agoI have a bookmarklet to specifically add/edit the <meta> tag on the page to change the viewport width to 1200px. Works in many cases, although there still are sites that break with this. I have seen sites that uses the value of window.innerWidth at load and never bother listening for changes in the width. I have seen sites that uses the presence of onTouchMove event to determine whether to use a mobile layout.
- notatoad 8y agoI'm pretty sure Chrome's "request desktop site" option does change the viewport size. Or if it's doing something else, it has the same effect. Have you tried it in the last couple months? It seems like a fairly recent change in behaviour.
- fireattack 8y agoI don't get what you mean, I'm talking about opening an "m.facebook.com" link on my desktop computer Chrome. So not sure why "Show desktop version" is relevant. >Very few sites actually use www. vs m. Well, facebook does that.
- hegz 8y agoModern websites use the screen width to show you mobile vs desktop view. But before CSS had good support for responsive web design everyone had to create a separate website for mobile and put it on m.website
- idbehold 8y agoWhat you may be surprised to learn is that Chrome isn't just stripping "www." from the beginning of the subdomain. "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com"
- type0 8y agoThis is amazing, what a freak show.
- contravariant 8y agoIsn't this a security risk? What if someone malicious takes control of the www.com domain?
- speleding 8y agoThe www.com might not be easy to get, but there is probably a www name at another important TLD that can be purchased. And if you own that domain you can easily get SSL certificates too. Sounds like Chrome could now be a phisher's best friend…
- qu4z-2 8y agoIt appears that it only does it for anything subdomainish -- that is, not the first part after the TLD. I tested it against .nz which has a silly mix of .{co,govt,school}.nz second-level domains and directly registered example.nz domains and it always displays at least one "registered" bit. Which is almost worse because it seems like people have put thought into this.
- larkeith 8y agoThis entire change is a security risk - there is no guarantee that any subdomain has the same owner as the primary, and that's not even getting into subdomain hijacking.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoLet's get into subdomain hijacking a bit. Imagine taking control of www.www.www.google.com .
- brockers 8y agoNo this is simply bad implementation. As has already been mention, for internet services that also have websites for those services the www. subdomain makes total sense. > How will you distinguish http://www.pool.ntp.org http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org http://pool.ntp.org ? In the above case pool.ntp.org is a decades old time service, while www.pool.ntp.org is a website describing the service.
- hjfa0j 8y agoThat website looks unexpectedly modern.
- howard941 8y agoDo you get something at http://pool.ntp.org http://pool.ntp.org ? My blowser times out as does telnetting to port 80
- kojeovo 8y agohttp://www.pool.ntp.org http://www.pool.ntp.org redirects to https://www.ntppool.org/en/ https://www.ntppool.org/en/ as does https://ntppool.org/en/ https://ntppool.org/en/, so I guess that's a non issue
- AlfeG 8y agoHow many sites do even use this convention of `m.`? In .ru territorybon internet there is around zero such sites.
- Yizahi 8y agoIt's not about hiding www. or m. subdomains. It's about hiding amp. subdomain, and google is really invested into turning web into collection of amp pages on their own servers.
- Ajedi32 8y agoLooks like they're only going to be hiding `m.` on mobile. On desktop it will still show by default.