5 ms·

Update on special-case subdomain elision in Chrome

28 points by shabble 8y ago

mbrumlow 8y ago
> special-case subdomains “www” and “m” These are not special-case subdomains, they are simply subdomains...
- kixpanganiban 8y ago
  This. The rollback they're doing is something we of Hispanic descent call consuelo-de-bobo. They're still going to elide www so what's the point?
londons_explore 8y ago
The missing rationale here seems to be: * The domain part of a URL is a critical security indicator. * The shorter and simpler this indicator is, the more chance users will understand and trust it. * Very few users trust www.yahoo.com while not trusting yahoo.com. * If we assume that users who trust www.domain.com also trust domain.com and vice versa, we can remove the "www." from the UI, creating a shorter, simpler and more understandable security token.
- frumiousirc 8y ago
  > The domain part of a URL is a critical security indicator. Except when it's not. https://www.schrauger.com/the-story-of-how-wosign-gave-me-an-ssl-certificate-for-github-com https://www.schrauger.com/the-story-of-how-wosign-gave-me-an... http://freedns.afraid.org/ http://freedns.afraid.org/
lucideer 8y ago
> We do not plan to standardize how browsers should treat these special cases in their UI This is a statement from the Chrome team; from Google. Since when does Google unilaterally decide on what it will or will not standardise in other browsers? Standardisation is a multi-stakeholder collaborative process. This sounds very much like Google representatives don't view it as such. Given their dominant market position, that's a worrying sign.
- detaro 8y ago
  It helps to read that sentence in the context of the sentence right before it.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    The context doesn't change the meaning. The previous sentence talks about engaging in a (separate, different) standardisation process with others, and this sentence then does a jarring context switch by instead talking about a seemingly unilateral action (albeit thankfully in the negative, so only the tone is of concern).
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      No, the sentence in question is—and the context you are dismissig makes this abundantly clear, though it is also the most natural reading of the sentence in isolation, IMO—using “standardize” to mean “seek to establish as an industry standard through the process of a standards body.” (Note that while I think the language is clear, I think this whole approach from Google is ill-conceived to the point of borderline lunacy; there is no need for these to be special-case subdomains or for them to be treated specially by UIs at all.)
jwilk 8y ago
Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972
jsjohnst 8y ago
My money is on Tumblr having been the primary “big site” where this was an issue.
robbyt 8y ago
They've added a feature nobody asked for, so there must be another hidden reason why they've decided to add this. Any ideas? Is this really just a "UX enhancement", or is there a bigger strategy behind it?
Boulth 8y ago
If only HTTP supported SRV records so people could use bare domain (google.com) in the UI while serving content transparently from other hosts. Many protocols use that (e.g. XMPP). But no, it seems to be easier to stick to www CNAME "hack" and fix it by introducing even more hacks like this "www elision".
parliament32 8y ago
>There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the “www” subdomain to be user controlled. Is there any record of this "consensus"? This shouldn't be happening, period. There is a difference between example.com and www.example.com: they can serve different content, and can have different DNS records. There is literally no sane reason to hide any subdomain, common or not -- it's there for a reason. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
Thanks for the heads up!
mmerlin 8y ago
I don't get it. Putting style before substance. To disable the annoying behaviour: chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains

28 points by shabble 8y ago

mbrumlow 8y ago

> special-case subdomains “www” and “m” These are not special-case subdomains, they are simply subdomains...

kixpanganiban 8y ago
This. The rollback they're doing is something we of Hispanic descent call consuelo-de-bobo. They're still going to elide www so what's the point?

londons_explore 8y ago

The missing rationale here seems to be: * The domain part of a URL is a critical security indicator. * The shorter and simpler this indicator is, the more chance users will understand and trust it. * Very few users trust www.yahoo.com while not trusting yahoo.com. * If we assume that users who trust www.domain.com also trust domain.com and vice versa, we can remove the "www." from the UI, creating a shorter, simpler and more understandable security token.

frumiousirc 8y ago
> The domain part of a URL is a critical security indicator. Except when it's not. https://www.schrauger.com/the-story-of-how-wosign-gave-me-an-ssl-certificate-for-github-com https://www.schrauger.com/the-story-of-how-wosign-gave-me-an... http://freedns.afraid.org/ http://freedns.afraid.org/

lucideer 8y ago

> We do not plan to standardize how browsers should treat these special cases in their UI This is a statement from the Chrome team; from Google. Since when does Google unilaterally decide on what it will or will not standardise in other browsers? Standardisation is a multi-stakeholder collaborative process. This sounds very much like Google representatives don't view it as such. Given their dominant market position, that's a worrying sign.

detaro 8y ago
It helps to read that sentence in the context of the sentence right before it.
- lucideer 8y ago
  The context doesn't change the meaning. The previous sentence talks about engaging in a (separate, different) standardisation process with others, and this sentence then does a jarring context switch by instead talking about a seemingly unilateral action (albeit thankfully in the negative, so only the tone is of concern).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    No, the sentence in question is—and the context you are dismissig makes this abundantly clear, though it is also the most natural reading of the sentence in isolation, IMO—using “standardize” to mean “seek to establish as an industry standard through the process of a standards body.” (Note that while I think the language is clear, I think this whole approach from Google is ill-conceived to the point of borderline lunacy; there is no need for these to be special-case subdomains or for them to be treated specially by UIs at all.)

jwilk 8y ago

Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972

jsjohnst 8y ago

My money is on Tumblr having been the primary “big site” where this was an issue.

robbyt 8y ago

They've added a feature nobody asked for, so there must be another hidden reason why they've decided to add this. Any ideas? Is this really just a "UX enhancement", or is there a bigger strategy behind it?

Boulth 8y ago

If only HTTP supported SRV records so people could use bare domain (google.com) in the UI while serving content transparently from other hosts. Many protocols use that (e.g. XMPP). But no, it seems to be easier to stick to www CNAME "hack" and fix it by introducing even more hacks like this "www elision".

parliament32 8y ago

>There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the “www” subdomain to be user controlled. Is there any record of this "consensus"? This shouldn't be happening, period. There is a difference between example.com and www.example.com: they can serve different content, and can have different DNS records. There is literally no sane reason to hide any subdomain, common or not -- it's there for a reason. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17927972

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

Thanks for the heads up!

mmerlin 8y ago

I don't get it. Putting style before substance. To disable the annoying behaviour: chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains