9 ms·

both changes are great. www must go, it's a remnant of the past, the sooner the better. protocol is not a detail that should be ever exposed to the end user,

both changes are great. www must go, it's a remnant of the past, the sooner the better. protocol is not a detail that should be ever exposed to the end user, at least not in text form. visual cues "you're safe" or "your connection isn't secure" are much more effective.

rusk 7y ago
This of course presumes that the dns is only for www, which of course it isnt
- keymone 7y ago
  could you elaborate please?
  - rusk 7y ago
    no, sorry
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> www must go, it's a remnant of the past, the sooner the better. Which then is a thing for websites to do, not for browsers to lie about.
- keymone 7y ago
  > not for browsers to lie about it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) > a thing for websites to do they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. The host name is not redundant information. > if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? Why should I write idiotic rants? > if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) Well, great that you disagree. Now, please do the work of changing the relevant standards instead of making yourself look like an idiot by calling people who read and follow standards "incompetent developers". > they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy. Which is not the topic of this disucssion.
    - username90 7y ago
      >> if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? > Why should I write idiotic rants? You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? That way you can write https://www.google.com:13000 https://www.google.com:13000 for example to try to connect to another port, but now you believe that those addresses doesn't exist. Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? No, I am not, for the simple reason that that is not the case. Browsers hide port 80 only for HTTP and port 443 only for HTTPS, because those are the well-known ports for those protocols, and the specifications of URIs and those protocols define that no port in the URI is equivalent to the well-known port, and what the well-known ports are. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 > For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. No, the browsers simply follow the relevant standards, as you can see from the links above. > Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? No, there is no additional information in displaying the well-known port, as per the standards cited above, so it would be a completely useless waste of space. > Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www. What do you mean by "standards parts"? Also, could you please cite the relevant standard that specifies that http[s]://www.domain/ is equivalent to http[s]://domain/?
masswerk 7y ago
Post addresses should go away. "You're at home" or "you are away" displayed on your smartphone lock screen should do. For the rest, there's Uber. – I'm not so sure that this is how real life works. Understanding addresses (post or electronic) is an important part of liability and a sound mind. Also, how do you identify authority, if you do not know about uniforms or IDs?
- keymone 7y ago
  a) you're confusing addressing something with presenting the address; b) you're completely (possibly intentionally) ignoring the context, which is all about specifically "www" part, the trivial non informative part that is just a historical artifact. i'll let you sort out the rest.
  - masswerk 7y ago
    If in doubt about the historical context of the "www" subdomains: This was, when dedicated services were run on dedicated machines (or rather, dedicated network interfaces). "www" was just a default appellation (much like a well known address on particular services) for a server running W3 services. I don't see, why there isn't a use case for dedicated service domains anymore. (Not everything is WWW.) There's no magic to this and has never been. (The magic is in the port number as encoded in the protocol portion of a URI.) Regarding the context of the example, all this is about navigating and about communicating how to navigate. Real live addresses tend to be much more messy, but they are bearable and users have been able to operate them for what is now several centuries.

rusk 7y ago

This of course presumes that the dns is only for www, which of course it isnt

keymone 7y ago
could you elaborate please?
- rusk 7y ago
  no, sorry

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> www must go, it's a remnant of the past, the sooner the better. Which then is a thing for websites to do, not for browsers to lie about.

keymone 7y ago
> not for browsers to lie about it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) > a thing for websites to do they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. The host name is not redundant information. > if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? Why should I write idiotic rants? > if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) Well, great that you disagree. Now, please do the work of changing the relevant standards instead of making yourself look like an idiot by calling people who read and follow standards "incompetent developers". > they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy. Which is not the topic of this disucssion.
  - username90 7y ago
    >> if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? > Why should I write idiotic rants? You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? That way you can write https://www.google.com:13000 https://www.google.com:13000 for example to try to connect to another port, but now you believe that those addresses doesn't exist. Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? No, I am not, for the simple reason that that is not the case. Browsers hide port 80 only for HTTP and port 443 only for HTTPS, because those are the well-known ports for those protocols, and the specifications of URIs and those protocols define that no port in the URI is equivalent to the well-known port, and what the well-known ports are. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 > For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. No, the browsers simply follow the relevant standards, as you can see from the links above. > Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? No, there is no additional information in displaying the well-known port, as per the standards cited above, so it would be a completely useless waste of space. > Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www. What do you mean by "standards parts"? Also, could you please cite the relevant standard that specifies that http[s]://www.domain/ is equivalent to http[s]://domain/?

masswerk 7y ago

Post addresses should go away. "You're at home" or "you are away" displayed on your smartphone lock screen should do. For the rest, there's Uber. – I'm not so sure that this is how real life works. Understanding addresses (post or electronic) is an important part of liability and a sound mind. Also, how do you identify authority, if you do not know about uniforms or IDs?

keymone 7y ago
a) you're confusing addressing something with presenting the address; b) you're completely (possibly intentionally) ignoring the context, which is all about specifically "www" part, the trivial non informative part that is just a historical artifact. i'll let you sort out the rest.
- masswerk 7y ago
  If in doubt about the historical context of the "www" subdomains: This was, when dedicated services were run on dedicated machines (or rather, dedicated network interfaces). "www" was just a default appellation (much like a well known address on particular services) for a server running W3 services. I don't see, why there isn't a use case for dedicated service domains anymore. (Not everything is WWW.) There's no magic to this and has never been. (The magic is in the port number as encoded in the protocol portion of a URI.) Regarding the context of the example, all this is about navigating and about communicating how to navigate. Real live addresses tend to be much more messy, but they are bearable and users have been able to operate them for what is now several centuries.