27 ms·
Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar
- seek3r00 6y agoMaybe, AndroidPolice should change its name. Just saying...
- Dicey84 6y agoCan see this being exploited in some fashion for phishing attacks..
- krona 6y agoCan you be specific?
- austincheney 6y agoThis change visibly hides subdomains. On some domains subdomains represent different sites from different unrelated authors. That being said it is of trivial effort to clone a site to capture sensitive information hosted under any subdomain with a valid HTTPS certificate.
- K2L8M11N2 6y agoShouldn't it actually help, seeing as the domain name is the important part? Now users can't get tricked into interpreting the path as part of the domain name.
- hirako2000 6y agoEven if it does help in some cases, it's hiding the path, which in itself could cause other vectors of attacks. Just host malicious pages on legit sites where you can host and phish for clicks to it, faking the home page look and feel.
- tiborsaas 6y agoFor phishing to work you need a similar domain if you want to maximize the conned people. Copying the path from the attacked website is the easiest part. I can even argue that if you take away the path from the URL, then it's actually easier to spot a phishing website since all you see is the domain if you don't hover over the address bar.
- sdan 6y agoDon't think that would be the case. If anything it would only make the user focus on the domain to realize that it might not be legit.
- netdur 6y agoActually the opposite as _only_ the domain is fully visible
- strogonoff 6y agoWhile I don’t welcome hiding full URLs at all and won’t use any browser that doesn’t allow to turn that off easily, this matter is more or less orthogonal to phishing. If domain-owning organization fails to prevent a third party from hosting a phishing site under a path or a subdomain, that third party is likely well-positioned to deface the existing pages. With a subtle alteration (scripts that capture credentials and transmit them out), the existing pages grant an attacker all of the users with no extra effort—as opposed distributing a link to a fake page, convincing the user that the page is legit, and in the end getting a fraction of the user base.
- buboard 6y agoYou can be at peace knowing that you re reading news.ycombimator.com
- Gehinnn 6y agoThis might be harmful to github pages where it would hide the repository name. If they include this without offering an option to turn it off, I will quit using Chrome.
- curiousgal 6y agoI switched to Firefox years ago and never looked back.
- nxpnsv 6y agoIt is weird not more people just respond this way rather than getting all worked up about it...
- Angostura 6y agoIt's weird that people like a particular browswer for a number of its feature, but are upset about a change that makes it worse?
- randomsearch 6y agoChrome is the new IE. Some sites don’t work (well) with others browsers, so people are annoyed when the browser they are forced to use does stupid things.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoBefore Edge came out, I always preferred IE11 over Chrome (on machines that only had those two installed), because IE11 kept the legacy "must compete with Netscape" features like decent contentEditable context menus. And websites that didn't work in IE11 generally weren't worth using anyway. Now… well, IE11 doesn't even support ES6 properly, and good sites have started relying on that, and Edge is just evil Chrome – unless it's got Firefox installed, Chrome's your only option. But sites that use Chrome-only APIs aren't worth using anyway. (Oh, wait, Zoom needs either Chrome or a malwarey desktop program.)
- Tehnix 6y agoSo Chrome is only showing the domain part now? Just like Safari has been for a long time? Personally I quite like it. From what I understand the main goal is to make phishing attacks more clear to the user, since this is ultimately only a thing the end-user can protect against. Removing the noise definitely helps for that. Having had it like this in Safari for a long time, I must say I greatly prefer this over the older behavior---the only time I care about a full URL is when I select it to copy it.
- sdan 6y agoSafari has an option to include the full URL. As a developer, I need the full URL so I turn on the option. If Chrome by some miracle actually goes through with this, I'll try to see if I can get around it (because at the end of the day, everyone uses chrome and chrome dev tools are by far the best).
- masklinn 6y agoOther comments are saying there's a flag (chrome://flags) to show the full URL, at least for now.
- mosselman 6y ago> chrome dev tools are by far the best How are they better than those in Firefox? It looks like you did a thorough analysis.
- hirako2000 6y agoChrome dev tool used to be far better than any native alternative. Including Firefox, but Firefox has caught up. A tad too late as Firefox had, prior to chrome, the best native dev tool.
- wetpaws 6y agoYou must be a non-web developer, otherwise you would not have this question.
- chrisco255 6y ago
- Orochikaku 6y agoA couple of Google Chrome devs talk about the issues surrounding the readability of urls and their security implications and possible solutions in an episode of their podcast[0]. I think they make a compelling argument for hiding most of the url in part to prevent phishing however I do think they should allow this behaviour to be toggled via a flag. [0] https://youtu.be/0-wB1VY3Nrc https://youtu.be/0-wB1VY3Nrc
- mkl 6y agoDo you know if this information is somewhere more accessible than a 20 minute video? Hiding the https and www is already frustrating enough, and this change would make Chrome barely usable for my purposes.
- delouvois 6y agoTheir goal is full AMP dominance. Just look at these evil guys faces. It's clear enough that they're going to pass their frustrations onto you, no matter what.
- ubercow13 6y agoThe claimed purpose is basically just to prevent phishing. They explain a number of reasons why it is difficult for people to extract from a URL the part which is relevant to security, ie. the bit that affects who has authority over the page and how your cookies will be separated by the browser. The cookie sharing actually had some rules I didn't know about as a non-web developer but experienced URL user. They show how every browser is already going some way towards this but they all have some problems, for example Safari shows the full domain not just the important part.
- megous 6y agoLooks like this will be great for reflected XSS attacks. Even advanced users will not be able to notice there's something weird going on outside of the domain name part of the URL. Perfect! Basically any page on the website with this vulnerability will be useable to show a fake login page, and user will not even notice he's not on the /login, but on some weird path + ?_sort=somejavascript Not that it's that hard to clean up url via history api after you get access to the page via XSS atm, but there's still some short period of time where the full url is shown in such a case, that may provoke suspicion.
- victorelu 6y agoThis, along with the inability of disabling the async dns feature in the latest Chrome for desktop versions (thus making pihole/adguard irrelevant), makes me accelerate the change to another browser.
- viraptor 6y agoI'm curious - why do you want to disable it?
- victorelu 6y agoBecause I want to use my own DNS server and block ads at the DNS level rather than the browser level. With this move, Google has effectively white listed adsense / adwords to not be blocked regardless of the network settings of the device.
- em-bee 6y agothis is confusing. https://www.xda-developers.com/fix-dns-ad-blocker-chrome/ https://www.xda-developers.com/fix-dns-ad-blocker-chrome/ seems that the problem is not async itself, but that chrome ignores the system DNS settings and uses googles own DNS servers instead.
- victorelu 6y agoThat is a good point, I might have been pointing at the wrong issue in Chrome. I have only seen this behavior happen since 2-3 days ago and all my research pointed me to async dns being the culprit. I am really eager to find out if this can be disabled in any way, but my Chrome time has come to an end with recent developments.
- viraptor 6y agoSeems like a bug. Some environments cannot reach external DNS servers, so it would break resolution in general. This happened before and was fixed: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=265970 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=265970 I couldn't find any report for the current issue though - maybe you should start one.
- enlyth 6y agoAt chrome://flags there is one called #omnibox-context-menu-show-full-urls, which I have turned on. This enables you to right click on the address bar, and turn on the option "Always show full URLs". It will always shows the full URL including the protocol, but I suspect they will remove this flag at some point.
- mkl 6y agoA heads up for those with lots of tabs open: This requires a browser restart, and setting it once seems to set it for all profiles.
- pedrocx486 6y agoIf you happen to close your browser and lose your tabs, use the reopen closed tab menu option, it'll bring all the closed tabs (even if multiple tabs).
- mkl 6y agoEven safer is to use an extension like Session Buddy, to explicitly save tabs and windows, including exporting to files.
- cryptica 6y agoI can't find this option on Chrome on Linux. I had to get an extension to show the full URL, but it only works for 'https://' https://' URLs, not for 'http://' http://'. This drives me crazy when debugging. Whenever I copy-paste IP addresses from the browser address bar into my console, I have to manually delete the `http://` http://` at the front. I work on a P2P project so this is an extremely common situation for me.
- enlyth 6y agoAre you running version 83 or later? I think they introduced the flag in that one. Another solution for Windows and macOS users (no Linux sadly) is to use Edge Chromium, which does it by default, and you prefer to donate your data to Microsoft rather than Google like me :)
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoI guess Linux distros should start supplying patched Chromium then.
- nieve 6y agoI doubt that Ubuntu moving to having Chrome being a snap is a good sign for them doing the right thing with a custom Chromium.
- temptemptemp111 6y agoPatched ungoogled-chromium ;)
- m0xte 6y agoWonder how long it’ll be before it shows the proxied URL on amp pages...
- hirako2000 6y agoWouldn't surprise me. Users are the product, what's to expect.
- ShamelessC 6y agoI think they're already trying to force that at the network level instead of the browser level using signed exchanges. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/11/signed-exchanges https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/11/signed-exc...
- m0xte 6y agoFfs. I’m going back to gopher at some point.
- anticensor 6y agoGopher over SNA/OSI is worse than WWW/TCP/IP in terms of ability to publish UGC.
- m0xte 6y agoThat's a feature
- anticensor 6y agoGoogle Network Control Program?
- Hackbraten 6y agoWhich is soon to be usurped by Google because it starts with “Go.”
- jpxw 6y agoI can see the arguments for why this might be advantageous security-wise. I just hope they make it easy to disable (and it remains possible to disable in future) for those of us who are technically minded and are able to read URLs.
- aclelland 6y agoTo enable the old behaviour you need to edit a browser flag. I don't know of any of the flags that disable Google 'engagement' features which have been kept around over the long term. The flags I've had to set in the past have all been removed after a few months. Two recent examples off the top of my head are the recommended stories on the new tab page and the ability to disable images appearing in the omnibox.
- swyx 6y agowhat security arguments are there that are not also solved by highlighting the domain instead of removing critical information?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- scalableUnicon 6y agoI just hope firefox doesn't follow this trend. It was too difficult for me to adjust to their "one click select all" address bar that I now use ctrl + L for address bar interactions.
- simonkafan 6y agoIsn't this a good example of "feature creep"? I dont see any reason why it makes a browser more useful when the URL is partially hidden. It reminds me of a company which developed a product which was more or less done. So the SWE manager and the product manager made up new (pretty useless) features just to tell their bosses the devs are busy and the team must stay intact.
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 6y agoIt makes their serving of AMP less transparent, which is a good thing for them. I guess.
- anticristi 6y agoI'm starting to wonder when the EU will raise the anti-trust flag. It seems obvious to me that Google tries to use it's start page market dominance to become the only webpage served on the Internet.
- nerdponx 6y agoThis is the only economically rational explanation I can think of. Unless it ties into other user-abusive projects they have planned.
- apatheticonion 6y agoCan we please focus on web assembly and convincing Apple to catch up?
- dependenttypes 6y agoThe sad part is that Mozilla is probably going to follow suit just like they did with the previous attacks on the bar.
- macpete 6y agoThe final goal is to make amp urls look like regular ones
- rainboiboi 6y agoCan someone explain why Google is doing this? I cannot figure out why it can benefit anyone (or to Google).
- abofh 6y agoIt benefits Google in a number of ways - amp pages being the biggest one. It benefits nobody else as best I can tell, as it further obfuscates technology from the user
- johnchristopher 6y agoMust have hired too much Gnome designers :). /s (I actually like Gnome's statement)
- jchw 6y agoOK, I just don’t get it anymore. I mean I’m a happy Firefox user, so it’s not like this personally impacts me, but how in the heck is seemingly nobody acknowledging that this has been the behavior in Safari for a long time now? This seems to be a recurring pattern.
- noisem4ker 6y agoI've got a couple of guesses. Apple is somehow regarded as being a pro-user company, not having plans of taking over the web. Also, Apple users are accustomed to UI changes that result in visual simplicity. Nevermind that their actions result in patronizing the user just the same as Google does, in their case those actions are more likely to be perceived as innocuous.
- yreg 6y agoCmd+f Safari, I'm equally surprised no one but you mentions it. However: I believe Apple's motives are aligned with their users and they want their browser to be as safe and as easy to understand/use as possible. Their primary intention is to sell their shiny expensive hardware. With Google it's more controversial, because who knows what's the plan. Combined with AMP there is a reason to be wary. Ofc, one can make bad decisions based on good motives.
- butz 6y agoWhile this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it was easy to spot with just a glance at URL bar, now one has to do additional clicking or opening devtools. Probably we are at the crossroads where developers need separate, not dumbed-down version of browser.
- ck2 6y agothere is a trick for at least chrome before 85, where if you install the google-made extension "suspicious site reporter" it will show the full url including protocol (which you can't even do with flags so it tampers with something internally which means they don't have to do this at all)
- londons_explore 6y agoI highly doubt a non-default extension has extra permissions that aren't available to regular extensions... Can anyone reproduce this?
- gruez 6y agoI looked into it several months ago and it looks like that extension is whitelisted to do it. If you try to repack the crx file and install it, the address bar doesn't get changed.
- marksomnian 6y agoThe extension ID is literally hard coded in the code of the scheme hiding code. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:chrome/browser/ui/toolbar/chrome_location_bar_model_delegate.cc;l=46?q=jknemblkbdhdcpllfgbfekkdciegfboi&sq=&ss=chromium&originalUrl=https:%2F%2Fcs.chromium.org%2F https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:c...
- azifali 6y agoI've stopped using Chrome.. it is an optional browser. Firefox is my Goto browser at this moment of time.
- bbarn 6y agoWhy not just use a syntax highlighting approach on the address bar? Protocol one color, domain another, slashes one color, query params another, etc.
- snarfy 6y agoIt's a pretty obvious solution, especially to any programmer. I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where you have information, some more important and some less, where the correct solution is to delete the less important information. It still has importance!
- CyanBird 6y agoBecause Ux/ui designers and art inclined people would lose their mind
- andromeduck 6y agoWhat you described is more like highlighting the function signature in one color and the entire body in another. Syntax highlighting for the URL would be more like domain/subdomain in one color, emphasising query fields in one color and params in another, with colors potentially varying potentially based on their type/significance. That might help make the URL more readable but again doesn't really help if the relevant parts of the path/query string for trust isn't immediately apparent.
- guerrilla 6y agoor breadcrumb trail as someone else said.
- abraham 6y agoUsing color to convey information is very difficult to make it be accessible while still working with themes and being aesthetically pleasing at the same time.
- delouvois 6y agoMotherfuckers WHAT THE HELL
- ahmedfromtunis 6y agoIf their goal is really to help detect fraudulent sites (the sorts of google.com.notahacker.tk), they can just show the domain in a more prominent way -- they're already deemphasizing the part of the URL after the domain name anyway. This is clearly not their motive. What Google is trying to do here is to drift the web from its most iconic components: the URL. This is the biggest threat to the web that we loved for so many years.
- mrweasel 6y agoI honestly don’t think people are paying attention to the URL bar, at least not the people this feature it trying to protect. If it looks like Google.com, then it Google.com. The logo even says so. It’s a dumbing down of the internet, in an attempt to help the average user, but it won’t work and you’re just making life harder for those who know just a bit more then average.
- nerdponx 6y agoThat's bullshit, it's not an attempt to help anybody but Google. What better way to keep people on AMP pages, than to make them so ignorant as to not even know how to tell the difference?
- chiefsucker 6y agoWhat the heck? A regular user doesn’t understand or care what the technical difference between a “regular” page and AMP is. I wouldn’t call this ignorance per se.
- choeger 6y agoNot knowing and not caring is the very definition of ignorance. Sometimes I wonder if feudalism must have felt like this from the perspective of the noble people. Will there be a dark age followed by enlightenment? Because right now we seem to encounter self-imposed nonage.
- 6y ago
- Santosh83 6y agoPretty ironic for a company that wouldn't exist except for the ability to crawl and index URLs. So now only the domain and TLDs are to be shown. I presume that a "full" URL can be typed once the URL bar is clicked though? But any guesses how long until they remove the ability to enter URLs?
- anticensor 6y agoThey will not as it will cause a serious backlash from web developers for making it a Googlenet viewer rather than a web browser.
- noisem4ker 6y ago>Pretty ironic for a company that wouldn't exist except for the ability to crawl and index URLs. It's called "kicking the ladder after climbing the wall".
- spiritplumber 6y agoGoogle wants to be the new AOL.
- li4ick 6y agoWhoever at Google is responsible for this, I suggest they read this: http://worrydream.com/MagicInk http://worrydream.com/MagicInk I guess they forgot what "information software" means. I use Firefox, but this is just bad design.
- ptx 6y agoI haven't read it yet, but the movies in those examples ("Rainman Forever", "Die Hard With More Intensity", etc.) sound fantastic. And they all feature Jet Li.
- fbnlsr 6y agoThis is wrong on SO MANY levels. I'm glad I've switched back to Firefox when they launched Quantum.
- cletus 6y agoAnother phrase I live by: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." There will be some VP of Product or Engineering buried deep in the bureaucracy who is pushing this, deciding with no evidence (or, worse, lots of evidence to the contrary; believe me this happens) that it is the "users who are wrong" [1]. It now takes something like 4 taps to get to the point where I can correct or otherwise edit the URL in my mobile browser (Safari) as I have to go through different layers where someone, somewhere has decided I can't possibly mean to edit the URL so I must be wanting to select the entire thing. I'm sure this same "it's the users who are wrong" from a handful of key stakeholders that is pushing AMP. And for something that supposedly improves the mobile experience, it doesn't fit on my iPhone 11 screen and it's also disabled zoom. This is probably because I've changed the default zoom, something that gives me no end of problems but I can't control how bad my eyesight is and I don't need a company telling me I'm wrong for wanting to zoom. There is never an excuse to disable zoom on a browser and browser makers should remove the ability for sites to do this, period. I used to love the simplicity and features of Chrome. I once relied a great deal on Chrome Sync. For years I've used a password manager so a lot of the need for that has gone away. Sometimes it's nice to be able to open a page I have open on another device but I can also live without this. I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense to the point that yeah, I'm ready to ditch Chrome. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik
- jorisw 6y ago> SJW nonsense Congratulations on making everything about politics, even if it has zero to do with it.
- gpvos 6y agoActually everything is political, some things just more than others, and pulling in the SJW discussion is indeed not relevant here.
- ben_w 6y agoInsightful, but I am confused by the final paragraph: > I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense “SJW” must have a meaning I’m not familiar with, because Social Justice Warriors would be pro-accessibility, not anti.
- h91wka 6y agoIf at this point you still use Google products, while equal or better alternatives exist, you get what you deserve.
- danjc 6y agoI actually don't mind this for the gen pop. For them, showing the URL is a bit like showing the path to the current process in the title bar. As a dev, hiding the HTTPS prefix is already irritating especially when copying the URL. If you copy the whole URL, you're fine. If you manually select part of it, starting with the domain, the prefix doesn't copy. I expect this upcoming change will exacerbate this kind of problem. Don't we just need a persistent dev mode that doesn't mess around with the URL?
- nerdponx 6y agoI see absolutely no benefit whatsoever for the general population. Dumbing things down for people does not make technology easier, it makes people dumber. If your goal is to make people dumb and compliant, this is a great idea. Of course we know that's what Google's goal is, because that's what keeps the money flowing.
- ubercow13 6y ago> Dumbing things down for people does not make technology easier That's a bit of an absurd claim. Should my grandparents just be using luakit instead of Safari? Are you sure you aren't projecting your experience of technology onto people with a totally different experience of it to you? >I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever for the general population A benefit is reduced probability of being phished.
- toofy 6y ago> Dumbing things down for people does not make technology easier, it makes people dumber. It’s important to understand, while we, the users of Hacker News may find it odd that everyone doesn’t know these things, perspective will tell us they probably have other priorities for their time–and that’s OK. I don’t know, and honestly don’t care to know or prioritize the deep and intricate complexities of how deodorant or shampoo is made—or how it’s distributed, made safe for human use, etc. This does not make me dumber, it frees up my mental time for other priorities. The same can be said for the 1000s of things I use daily from toothpaste to refrigerators to stop-lights to dentistry. While I may have a general idea how these processes happen, my knowledge is by no means expansive. A deep understanding of everything should absolutely not be a requirement to function in a society. Is Google doing this for bad reasons? Maybe. But let’s not pretend as if simplifying things makes people dumber. It’s freeing up our limited resources. Expecting everyone to know deep details on the thousands of things they use everyday would absolutely bog us down into uselessness. One of the smartest things we ever did was to free ourselves from needing an intense understanding of everything we use throughout the day. As you move throughout today, notice the thousands of things you interact with which you have little idea about what went into it.
- pbasista 6y agoI believe that Google has evaluated it very carefully from all the possible perspectives and the net outcome for them was positive, so they went with it. I assume that they care more about blurring the line between the "Google"-served internet and the regular internet than about losing 2% of Chrome's usage rate.
- guerrilla 6y ago> positive positive for them, not necessarily anyone else.
- xenonite 6y agoBold typesetting of the domain, the rest in regular font and silver gray would provide a middle ground.
- 0xy 6y agoI disagree with the decision strongly, but I'm a developer and probably a "power user". A casual user might not even know what a URL is. Do you know there's a staggering amount of users who type "google.com" into Google?
- arexxbifs 6y ago> A casual user might not even know what a URL is. And this will add a few extra hoops for them to jump through before they learn, so that they'll never have to leave the reassuring embrace of Google's ad trackers. How convenient. :)
- Vinnl 6y agoThat's implying there's an "after they learn" - even without those hoops.
- criley2 6y agoI mean... not to be contrarian but does the average user need to know a URL? Do I need to know an address to drive my car somewhere? My knowledge that a place exists and I want to go there is sufficient to get me there, without having the physical address memorized. As a power-user I obviously navigate through URL far more than the average user, but I am not convinced that say a 50 year old nurse using my web software needs to ever touch a URL even a single time, or that it would be beneficial to her user experience to even know what it is.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kungato 6y agoI'd personally prefer if ot wasn't hidden but after first hamd experiencing non tech savvy family members trying to decipher the query part and some accusing someone of trying to hack them I'm for the change. The whole query string philosophy is such an outdated hack. Today it's just thousands of tracking qieries. What I hate is how poorly they worded when websites use http instead of https. It says "connection not secure" which makes people think there is a hacker somewhere hacking their connection. What they should have done and must correct is to make the wording "this website is not following safety guidelines". I'm tired if explaining.
- labawi 6y agoMaybe it should say "connection not secured". It would be much more factual.
- loopz 6y agoIf you dumb down users, they become dumber.
- kungato 6y agoPeople should not educate themselves on the details of implementation of the browser or internet as much as they don't educate themselves about the details of the car. We have many other complex systems with simple end user goals and people don't have to care about the details. The Americans don't even have the gear shift
- loopz 6y agoWhat is the conclusion of your hypothesis though, if users become unable to find and validate their services ie. like online banking, from possible fishing sites or otherwise hacked pages. Knowledge is power. So we need to be careful about making people impoverished or too reliant on centrally commanded portals, or prepare to face the consequences.
- Nextgrid 6y ago> trying to decipher the query part and some accusing someone of trying to hack them I'm for the change At least back in the day they will have the opportunity to learn what a query string is and that no, nobody is hacking anyone. However with these stupid changes there will no longer be an opportunity to learn even if you wanted to.
- baybal2 6y agoI can not believe now that GUI design at Google is not staffed with passing amateurs, and low end cadres
- Illniyar 6y agoThe problem this proposedly solves is a real one but only pushing and considering the most extreme solution suggests that it's not the real motivation. If the problem is that showing the whole url might hide the domain, why not make the domain bold? or highlighted some other way? What about separating the domain and path when viewing (but not when editing)? it's a bit hard but quite possible.
- flas9sd 6y agoOmnibox concept could help mobile browsers - not that Google would give this screen real estate easily away - but what if the address bar could serve as site wide search of the current site at all times with no more interactions. Absolving website sticky headers, sandwich menus. This could empower the "native web" against apps on small-screen devices.
- abzgPSw 6y agoHopefully they are sued for IP violations again in Europe. This is extremely sketchy, just stealing other people's content (as they also did on YouTube for years): https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/09/21/chrome-tests-hiding-urls-google-searches/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/09/21/chrome-tests-hiding...
- scandox 6y agoI'm against this. But: it's 2020 and still a huge number of people I deal with every day type the name of our product into their search bar and then login at the first site returned. Most don't know the difference between a browser and a specific website. It's all just a big Smush to them apparently.
- gsich 6y agoIt's $current_year is never a good excuse. $people not knowing stuff should not mean that everyone should get dumber to match $people.
- scandox 6y agoI agree. What I'm saying is clearly if you want to defeat this then a totally different approach needs to turn up because 20 years of mainstream internet use has resulted in zero user education.
- gsich 6y agoI doubt that. You mention in your parent post that people don't know the difference between a browser and a specific site. I think most people do. At least if they use more then 1 site.
- scandox 6y agoWhat I meant was that in a tech support context if you ask people what browser they're using they will often say something like "I went to Product Name" or "I'm on Product Name". Then ask them what actual address they visited or again ask them what browser they are using and they will say something like "I went to the Internet". I am not calling anybody dumb. I'm saying they don't care and don't know there is any reason to care.
- gsich 6y agoI still doubt that. People know how to enter URLs. They chose not to because it's oftentimes easier just to search where you want to go. Google Chrome hasn't gotten this market dominance by people not caring. It has to installed actively. Even if, showing the URL bar changes nothing for them, so why hide it?
- rkwasny 6y agoConspiracy theory: This change is dictated by the Google AMP team that wants to take over the world without us knowing
- walterbell 6y ago2018 Chrome roadmap demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&t=9m03s&v=pr5cIRruBsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?&t=9m03s&v=pr5cIRruBsc
- robert_g 6y ago> Conspiracy theory: This change is dictated by the Google AMP team that wants to take over the world without us knowing I was just about to write this but I don't necessarily think it's that far off. With signed exchanges, AMP pages have the ability to hide the fact you're accessing content through Google [1]. In 2016 Google wrote about testing 'mobile-first indexing' because more people are using mobile devices than desktop browsers [2]. [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp#about-signed-exchange https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp#a... [2] https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/11/mobile-first-indexing.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/11/mobile-first-index... If Google can control the URL narrative (keeping users from bouncing off AMP pages) it's just one more ability for them to be MITM.
- donmcronald 6y agoI wonder if they’ll eventually hide the URL path from extensions (for security) and serve ads off google.com. Even serving ads from somewhere under google.com/amp would probably cause problems for ad blockers. Or maybe extensions see the rewritten URL only, so CanSignHttpExchanges is a way of changing third party trackers and ads into first party. Also nice to see DigiCert helping them out, but I’m not surprised with how DigiCert’s product lineup isn’t much more than a test of how much of a sucker you are.
- irrational 6y agoHopefully Firefox doesn’t follow suit.
- loopz 6y agoFirefox became quite fast again after Quantum. For those of us who never "bought into" the whole Chrome ecosystem, there's always been adequate alternatives. Will check out: https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/
- gear54rus 6y agoThey have quite an interesting conversation on github: https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7w61aw/pale_moon_removed_from_openbsd_ports_due_to/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7w61aw/pale_moon_rem... I'd stay clear of that project and use mainstream Firefox instead. And afaik they still don't support WebExtensions.
- lysp 6y agoI currently run firefox developer edition - gives me access to custom extensions.
- StavrosK 6y agoFirefox mobile syncs beautifully with desktop, and they have a standalone password manager app that syncs with your browser's password manager, maybe you'll find it useful. There's also an accessibility setting to always force zoomability, even when the site disables it.
- OtterGauze 6y agoI'm a Firefox user, but I don't see myself using Lockwise, it's too lacking in features, not to mention the security caveats of using your browser's password "manager". You're better off using a third party like Bitwarden or KeyPass. Edit: Brain mashed together 1Password and KeyPass.
- sub7 6y agoFriendship with Chrome over. Firefox is my friend now.
- walterbell 6y agoThis is likely about replacing URIs with "web identity", i.e. certificate-signed content. The browser address bar would display the publisher name instead of site name. 2018 discussion with Google's Chrome demo at AMP event: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17923156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17923156
- pvg 6y agoThis is a setting, in flags (i.e. not in regular settings, the whole section in the ui is marked 'experiments') in the dev/canary builds of the browser. It defaults to off. The article (and even its slightly HN-improved title) is pure ragebait.
- guerrilla 6y agoThe setting will go away, as such things always do.
- kyrra 6y agoThere are actually tons of Chrome experiments that never launch 100% and have their flag removed. They are experiments for a reason. This lets the Chrome team iterate on things and try it out.
- pvg 6y agoThey don't 'always do' and the article is still flagworthy ragebait. There are dog farts that serve intellectual curiosity than this type of thing.
- dang 6y agoI've revised the title to reflect this a little better. The discussion indicates community interest in the topic that maybe exceeds the impact of this particular story, but it's genuine interest, and I don't think it's just rage.
- n1vz3r 6y agoWhile title is ragebait for sure, Google intent to eliminate URL and replace it with "something better" was clearly stated more than year ago. This article tells us they didn't give up on their efforts.
- tacone 6y agoCouldn't they just show the domain name in bold? It's that simple.
- isaacksmartlab 6y agokfdlfksdj
- danielovichdk 6y agoMy next Web application will not work in Chrome. Easy.
- vntok 6y agoWhy would you want to block 70-75% of Web users from your web application?
- noisy_boy 6y agoI moved back to Firefox last year and haven't had any reason to switch back to Chrome. FF has been plenty performant and even if was few microseconds slower than Chrome, I will still stick with it because it's in our collective interest to keep the competition alive. This ridiculous decision by Google just made my resolve stronger.
- darrmit 6y agoDitto. At first the biggest thing I struggled with was less-obvious profile support in FF, but container tabs and a bookmark on the toolbar to “about:profiles” nearly completely solved that. Now I greatly prefer my FF config and am glad to be free of Chrome decisions like this.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- skissane 6y agoThe other day, our 7 year old told me that [ is 5B and ] is 5D. I was quite impressed that he knew this, and I asked him how he knew it. He told me it was from reading the address bar in Roblox. Needlessly hiding technical details from kids is going to limit their learning.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoThis is how I learned them too (though about:… in IE5).
- csours 6y agoCoffee hasn't kicked in yet, took me a while to figure out you were saying '[' url encodes to 5B and ']' url encodes to 5D
- zingermc 6y agoI read that sentence 10 times. Wow.
- ceejayoz 6y agoIs that a meaningful piece of learning, though? I’ve been doing webdev since the 1990s and still look up character codes if I need them.
- shervinafshar 6y agoI think the value is not in memorizing such trivia; for a 7 years old it might be discovering the pattern of data encoding and its why and how. It opens all sort of paths of discovery in future for understanding software. You'd be surprised how often veteran developers fail to grasp intermediate Unicode concepts (surrogate pairs, for instance) probably since they skipped over (or was not curious enough about) implementation details of such abstractions.
- shashwatblack 6y agoSure, but it's the curiosity about how things work under the hood that matters. If he sees [ being replaced with %5B,he'll ask why it does that. And that leads to learning.
- pnako 6y agoNowadays when I connect to Google using the Googlebrowser powered by the Googleprotocols to access the Googlecontent I don't care about weird symbols like 'https', arcane concepts like URLs, etc.
- tigerlily 6y agoI think I'll double my annual donations to Mozilla starting this year.
- PeterStuer 6y agoSuppose there never was an URL you could share. Suppose you always had to tell people to 'Google it' Suppose 'I feel lucky' was always the default, and the result was sold to the highest bidder.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kitsune_ 6y agoThis and AMP, I mean, it's clear what Google is up to.
- revskill 6y agoSo i think the future of mobile computing is that mobile operating system will be just a browser. This is Google first step. It's a good news, not bad news if they're heading that way.
- jp1016 6y agowhen you change route on angular/react and wondering why it's not reflecting .... and suddenly remembers it's chrome 85, facepalm moment
- bishalb 6y agoOpera already does this and I hate it for that.
- malikNF 6y agoHonestly at this point I honestly have no idea why a wast majority of people are still choosing to support google's browser. Google is an ad-company and will do everything in its power to change the web to fit their business. You the user don't matter anymore.
- AshleysBrain 6y agoReading URLs is actually really hard - even for experts. This video covers the problems well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wB1VY3Nrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wB1VY3Nrc This is bad for web security, since the registerable domain is the part you have to trust, but it's surprisingly difficult to figure out that part. However I feel a bit uneasy about this since URLs are important and tell you where you are on a website. I prefer Firefox's approach which emphasises the registerable domain in the URL bar and fades out the rest of it, making it easier to spot the important bit. However it's still quite subtle - it could do with being a clearer distinction.
- anewdirection 6y agoIs this a parody comment?
- Lammy 6y agoThe way we use DNS (reversed) does make URLs kind of confusing for specificity, like: https://specific.more.less.example.com/less/more/specific.html https://specific.more.less.example.com/less/more/specific.ht...
- AshleysBrain 6y agoThe video points out things like: how do you spot an eTLD? There's .com, but what about .co.uk? .github.io? Do you know all the exceptions? There's basically a database of them and you just have to know them to correctly interpret the security origin of the domain.
- dewey 6y agoThis has been like this forever in Safari if "Show full website address" is disabled (which is the default I think).
- zffr 6y agoI believe this is already the default behavior in Safari. On iOS this is the only option. Personally, I don’t mind this being the default so long as there is an easy way to change it to see the full URL.
- buboard 6y agoI don’t get the complaints. This frees up so much space for ads in the address bar. Besides, people are finally certified stupid after decades of dumbing down everything, and they can’t help themselves, and only google knows which site is good or bad. They could have gone with a greyed out url path , but that would be too confusing for users. They only exist to search, click on ads and scroll endlessly.
- HiddenCanary 6y agoPresumably, this is going to mean developers, QA and security testers move away from Chrome as the URL bar is pretty key in many aspects of their job?
- hkai 6y agoI am going to go against Hanlon's razor here, but doesn't the slow push away from URLs benefit Google? A few years later, instead of type news.ycombinator.com, you would need to search for "hacker news", scroll through the ads and then click on the link. So it could be a slow transition to inserting a sort of interstitial ads inter your browsing.
- jtdev 6y agoWe need competition among browser vendors to prevent/discourage these abuses. Chrome is becoming IE of the early 2000s. I switched to FireFox ~2 years ago and couldn’t be happier.
- mlvljr 6y agoA question from the [dead]: will "undo close tab" ever come back? Iirc it was kind of promised originally, but never happened. Does anyone have any insigt?
- sorenjan 6y agoI actually wouldn't mind if the URL bar was replaced with a breadcrumb bar on some sites, like news and forums. Imagine something like Example.com > Worldnews > 2020 > 06 > 14 > Big aquatic monster spotted outside of Tokyo or forum.example.com > Sport > Football > Spain > Real Madrid It could then work like in Explorer in Windows 10, where you can press one of the breadcrumb separators and see a menu with siblings, or go straight to all news this month. It could use some manifest file in a standard format on the server for the directory information. Of course, this should never replace the URL completely, you should always be able to get to it easily. But URLs aren't necessarily always the best solution for navigation. We tokenize code and apply different colors, mouse over pop-ups, and links, why should the URL bar be a long raw text string when it's really contains structured data? This Google nonses of hiding everything except the domain is not a good solution IMO, it doesn't solve a problem and makes it harder to navigate, not easier.
- kiwidrew 6y agoYes, imagine if the browser vendors decided to _improve the usability of the URL bar_ instead of trying to remove it... The only difference between Example.com > Worldnews > 2020 > 06 > 14 > Big aquatic monster spotted outside Tokyo forum.example.com > Sport > Football > Spain > Real Madrid and https://example.com/worldnews/2020/06/14/big-aquatic-monster-spotted-outside-tokyo https://forum.example.com/sport/football/spain/real-madrid is a little bit of reformatting and upcasing and linkifying (or otherwise making selectable) the individual path segments of the URL. And probably some clever logic to deal with the randomforum.php?fid=12345&tpcid=984.3&page=5 goop that is still all-too-common... :/
- Mirioron 6y ago>And probably some clever logic to deal with the randomforum.php?fid=12345&tpcid=984.3&page=5 goop that is still all-too-common... :/ You say that as though websites like that are random small sites. HN has that kind of a URL, so do YouTube and Google.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
- jmull 6y agoSoftware should be designed for the user experience. Including features that help support, diagnose, log, test, debug, and develop are part of that, especially for software that provides a platform. For platforms, developers are one kind of user. However, developer features should be out-of-the-way by default. Anything beyond the domain is not meaningful to end-users and should be hidden by default in the same way other developer tools are.
- rawoke083600 6y agoToo far ! Address bar is part of "validation" for am I on the right site.
- guerrilla 6y agoDoes anyone remember AOL keywords? I worry that this might be laying the ground to do something like that. Maybe it's not planned or maybe it's only an option they want on the table but obviously they have the incentive to do some kind of "Google keywords" and this would certainly help with that.
- bsdubernerd 6y agoGoogle munging the URL on it's own search results to look like a breadcrumb bar is among the primary reasons I do not use google.com as my default search engine anymore. I'm surprised they didn't do the same on the URL bar instead of hiding the full URL. That being said, if you look at most non-IT persons using a browser, the URL is just visual noise for them: showing the domain prominently is perhaps (and _just_ perhaps) a better way to make them take notice. Not that I would ever use this for myself though. I already disable FF URL formatting and "trimming".
- dreamcompiler 6y agoIs it possible to build a proxy that translates AMP pages to real URLs? Maybe I could make my PiHole do double duty.
- agustif 6y agoIt's already pretty difficult to get a full URL on a random bug report/screenshot. This sadly will ensure this keeps being the case...
- nyxtom 6y agoThis is a bad idea for domains that have usernames included in the url.
- rooam-dev 6y agoGoogle is grooming next generation of users. It wants to be the Internet, the way IE (the E logo) used to be Internet to many users. Can you imagine removing house numbers from Street addresses? "Where did you buy that? On Main Str., but there wasn't any number..." If the URLs are ugly it's not Google's place to regulate that, but website's owner. If this is to protect users, then instead of removing information, add and/or make it more user friendly.
- toper-centage 6y agoThe reason for this is that Google wants to bully the world into AMP
- matthewfelgate 6y agoIt looks better than their previous attempts to obfuscate the URL bar.
- zajio1am 6y agoI would say that removing URL is also bad UI - if user sees that URL changes with navigation, then it is possible to guess that it can be copied and pasted to give a link for current page. If the URL bar would offer full URL for copy/paste, but show only the domain, then the feature of full URL copy/paste is hidden.
- Spivak 6y agoOr you just hit the share button? I think copy-and-paste would be considered the bad UX if it was new idea today. I think user-visible links would be considered bad UX if it was presented today. “Alright then you copy this opaque hundred character string into your chat window, make sure you get everything after the dollar sign, or strip it out. Depends on the site.” Copy and paste is the lowest common denominator of IPC.
- userbinator 6y agoOr you just hit the share button? ...which does who-knows-what behind your back, including possibly communicating with a third-party to see if you are "properly authorised to share", and meanwhile allowing them to subtly insert themselves into monitoring everyone's communication? Do NOT want.
- goatinaboat 6y agoShowing the full URL may detract from the parts of the URL that are more important to making a security decision on a webpage I would like to see some examples of this because that makes zero sense. The only reason I can see is to “dumb down” the browsing experience to reinforce Google’s position as gatekeeper.
- tmpz22 6y agoI’m pretty convinced this is going to lead to more tracking metadata shoved into the URL. I don’t know if that was the real incentive, that users weren’t clicking links with very clear tracking or tons of url params. But id put money down today that this will be the most significant end result. Thanks Google.
- EamonnMR 6y agoPhishers sites will love this change.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neycoda 6y agoNope, I want the full URL, including protocol, or at least the option to show it. Otherwise it creates ambiguity, confusion, and a security hole.
- pragmatic 6y agoThere is no company that is more well equipped to detect fraudulent domains than Google. They have the most data, most engineers, must anything that matters here. This is something else. I'm actually using Edge and it's not terrible. Multiple choices in the market is good.
- abbadadda 6y agoUse Firefox and DuckDuckGo instead of Chrome and Google.
- kevindong 6y agoFor what it's worth, this is already the default behavior in desktop Safari.
- acd 6y agoI am switching browser to Firefox because its nicer.
- crazygringo 6y agoSafari has been this way since 2014. I've never seen any pushback on Apple doing it over the past six years. It's genuinely a benefit for the vast, vast majority of users, where the only important piece of information really is the domain name, to check which site you're actually on. And for more info, you can just click. Copying the URL becomes no more difficult. The URL path beyond the domain is as useful to most people as an IP address, in other words not at all -- it's just noise. And displaying noise is bad UX. Pretty much only website developers and administrators and SEO people care about the full URL. Granted, there are a lot of those people here on HN, so I understand the pushback, but we're not most users. But at the end of the day, I don't understand why people seem totally fine with Safari doing this, but not Google?
- karmakaze 6y agoThe people who use Safari is exactly the demographic that this change targets. Chrome users includes most developers who are the ones to complain.
- amerine 6y agoI’m a developer. I use safari/WebKit for 95% of my browsing. You can enable the full address among a bunch of other excellent developer settings and move on with life with a browser that works great.
- soared 6y agoDevelopers are <1% of users - anything outside of dev tools is not changed with them in mind.
- chooseaname 6y agoIf I recall there was some grumbling, but Apple being Apple, they do what they want.
- on_and_off 6y agoAs long as you see the full url when you hover/click on the bar, I am all for it as well. If find some of reactions on this ridiculously hyperbolic "biggest attack on the web in years" ? seriously ? I get it, Google is a gigantic monster that does not necessarily act in its users best interests, but that does not mean we need to bring the pitchfork each time they launch an app update.
- mehrdadn 6y agoIf you care about this, my suggestion is to lend a hand to https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium and help them find a way to make the transition between Chrome and Chromium more seamless.
- brianzelip 6y agoWhy are y’all still using chrome?
- philistine 6y agoIf I were Facebook, I’d start building a browser yesterday.
- pkamb 6y agoThis "URL eliding" makes parameters impossible to click and select. So annoying. I filed a bug for desktop Chrome: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1084406 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=108440...
- blacklight 6y ago"Showing the full URL may detract from the parts of the URL that are more important to making a security decision on a webpage". Oh, really? As a security-aware user I really want to see the full URL to make sure it doesn't look something like https://big-vulnerable-site.com/?redirect_url=http://my-malicious-site.com https://big-vulnerable-site.com/?redirect_url=http://my-mali.... I fail to see a single use case where showing only the hostname or the domain increases the security of the browsing experience. But by now I'm also quite use to Google's way of shamelessly lying their way through.
- Spivak 6y agoHuh? If I was trying to get people to see that paypal.com.myevilsite.info/paypal/auth/secure then having myevilsite.com be the most prominent thing seems like a win.
- oconnor663 6y ago> I fail to see a single use case where showing only the hostname or the domain increases the security of the browsing experience. For you, a power user with presumably years (decades?) using the web and general technical fluency, sure. This doesn't particularly benefit you. The person it benefits is a beginner (possibly a permanent beginner), who's needs to be taught to look at the domain name of websites before typing in their password. This is already an unfamiliar and uncomfortable concept for a lot of people, and forcing them to parse a long string of line noise to find the thing they're supposed to check makes it worse. It's very difficult to for technical experts to put ourselves in the shoes of a permanent beginner. We like using computers. A lot of them hate it, but have to do it to pay their taxes or make appointments with their doctor or see photos of their relatives. We think the idea of protecting ourselves from attackers is neat, because it makes us feel in control. A lot of them think it's horrifying, because they feel out of control and exposed. Adding extra little steps, or little opportunities for confusion, has a big impact on these folks, and they need all the help they can get.
- m3kw9 6y agoSo no longer will I know if I’m inside a new type of Amp type page google is planning
- Grimm1 6y agoBreaking up Google or someone actually being a competitor sounds like a really healthy thing to me more and more.
- mrfusion 6y agoCan we all please go back to Firefox?
- princevegeta89 6y agoWow, this is epic scumbaggery. I still stick to Chrome because of all the syncing features it has across many of the devices I use, PC, Mobile, Mac and my own laptop. I remember at sometime in the past they hid URL query parameters by default, until the user clicked on the address bar. It's so obvious this move makes it harder for people to copy-paste links, which is a common practice, and moreover misleads people when they try to know what page they're on lol. test.com/profile or test.com/dashboard/favorites or many other pages that look like `home pages` of websites are now going to be misinterpreted as actual home pages themselves by users because of this witchery. If Google thinks this is a good move in that they can get people to land on websites through Search and not directly, it's an undoubtable massive deal-breaker for people like me.
- n1vz3r 6y agoFirefox can sync between different devices too. More, you can even self-host your sync server if you want.
- cycop 6y agoGoogle is dumbing down tech so new users don't understand the basics of the internet. Seems like a winning strategy and the culture they have built their company on.
- jbverschoor 6y agoWell you have to do something when search and ad revenue is slowly creeping away. These are dark patterns, making way for other browsers, such as Firefox.
- jarym 6y agoI know the average user probably doesn’t care much for URLs but I definitely do and it seems a chunk of HN crowd are with me. Would it be THAT hard to have a toggle option in the Settings so those who want to could preserve the URL?
- gamma3 6y agoLooks good to me. Nice UX. Normal users don't care about the URL and you can still copy the full URL if you want to share a link.
- apatters 6y agoThis feels like a good time to celebrate how I uninstalled Chromium from the last device I was using it on last week. 100% Firefox now! DuckDuckGo gets about 75% of my searches nowadays with the rest going to Google. Still using Maps, GSuite and Android... Baby steps!
- slmjkdbtl 6y agoThe click/edit to show full url is a good and intuitive design. A lot of websites just have terribly designed urls, with tons of obscure nesting paths and ?x=y flags that users don't care about. Here's what I got from searching the word "duck" in chrome search bar: https://www.google.com/search?q=duck&oq=duck&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j0l3j46j0j69i65.864j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 why would I care about the op, aps, sourceid and ie? If I really have to know the aqs value I can just simply click and have it.
- userbinator 6y agowhy would I care about the op, aps, sourceid and ie? Because they may be tracking identifiers... ...which I could argue is precisely why they don't want you to know. I always sanitise URLs when I share them with others, because of such things.
- skissane 6y ago> I always sanitise URLs when I share them with others, because of such things. Same here. Before sharing URLs with others, I often experiment with removing parameters to find the minimal URL that still works, and then share that.
- plerpin 6y agoMost sites use dynamically generated content with URLs that are essentially meaningless. The path for this comment thread in HN is "/item?id=23516088". A lot of websites append literally kilobytes of values to the querystring.
- sadsadsadsad 6y agoif you use chrome you are an idiot.
- macca321 6y agoBring it on. Users not knowing the path means search engines not using the path for ranking means a whole class of boring human readable SEO work goes away.
- PieUser 6y agoMy concern is that Google will eventually remove this flag and make this the default behaviour without any way to disable it. Safari, on the other hand, has an option to turn the feature off.
- tomohawk 6y agoOn many corporate networks I've used, its often far easier to directly change the URL to navigate than to use any other means.
- lopmotr 6y agoI think web developers are so used to URLs they don't realize how ridiculous they are. If you were inventing the web from scratch, there's no way you'd require a non-human-readable string displayed in the most prominent position on every single page and it's editable! How do people know how to edit it? Each site has its own unique undocumented parameters and formatting. It tells you something about the state of the page but not everything needed to debug problems. Also, don't make a SPA with an unchanging URL because you'll lose all the "important" value of a URL. Desktop and mobile apps somehow survive without them. If URLs are important, why don't developers include their own URL system in those?
- jannetalex 6y agoHello Everyone out there,I am here to give my testimony about a great, dr GODWIN. THE doctor who helped me cured my HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS in 2009, i went to many hospitals for cure but there was no solution, so I was thinking how can I get a solution out so that my body can be okay. One day I was in the river side thinking where I can go to get solution. so a lady walked to me telling me why am I so sad and i open up all to her telling her my problem, she told me that she can help me out, she introduce me to a doctor who uses herbal medication to cure HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS and gave me his email, so i mail him. He told me all the things I need to do and also give me instructions to take, which I followed properly. Before I knew what is happening after 1 weeks the HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS that was in my body got vanished . so if you are also heart broken and also need a help, you can also email him at {drgodwinharbs@gmail.com} or whatsapp him number: +2348089906968 Contact him today and you will have a testimony...Good luck! Dr. GODWIN Also Cures: 1. HIV/AIDS 2. HERPES 1/2 3. CANCER PENISE ENLARGEMENT 4. ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) 5. Hepatitis B 6. chronic pancreatic 7. Emphysema 8. COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
- edeion 6y agoWhy can't we just have two address bars? One for general "end" user that's optimized to help them against phishing and all, another one that's just the bare plain old URL? The toolbars are customizable, why not just add this option?