5 ms·
Firefox To Drop http:// and Single Trailing Slashes In The Address Bar
- dazzer 15y agoIsn't dropping trailing slashes a bit dangerous? They have different semantic meanings.
- jmathai 15y agoAgree. Slashes typically mean a directory separator but they're really a character like any other. Having separate pages at /foo and /foo/ is completely legitimate. Sometimes it seems like we're desperate for innovation. Someone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"?
- bartl 15y agoThey're just copying Google Chrome. Why, is anybody's guess.
- Tichy 15y ago"Having separate pages at /foo and /foo/ is completely legitimate" But also very confusing.
- Terretta 15y agoNot at all. One's a document and the other is an index list unless the list is replaced by a default document. Also, leaving off the slash to an index will usually cause the web server to do a redirect to to corrected URL with a slash, causing your user extra latency and your server extra hits.
- patio11 15y agoSomeone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"? 1) Normal users do not understand URLs, at all. 2) It is in Google's direct financial interest to extend overwhelming control of navigation on the Internet into complete domination, by discouraging navigation by end users and teaching them that the right way to navigate is to use AOL Keywords 2.0 at their friendly local multinational advertising company. Why would Firefox do this? I don't know. Maybe they have Chrome envy. Want a conspiracy theory? Firefox receives essentially 100% of their funding -- to the tune of over a hundred million bucks -- from Google kicking back advertising revenue in return for being the default search engine in FF. If a for-profit corporation made a decision in the interests of their sole client whose happiness was worth 9 figures a year, what would you conclude about the motivation for that decision?
- pasbesoin 15y agoI believe point 2) has not been emphasized enough.
- jmathai 15y agoYup, I hadn't thought of this until just now.
- chc 15y agoI think it's pretty much just the first reason you list. Firefox has been trying to move in this direction since the introduction of the horribly named AwesomeBar, which was intended to be a DWIM button for Web navigation. The conspiracy theory doesn't really hold up, since as far as I can tell, pleasing Google doesn't affect Mozilla's bottom line either way. The value of Google's happiness to Mozilla is substantially less than $9 million per year. The important metric isn't happiness — it's the binary "Have we avoided pissing Google off so badly that they're willing call off the deal and give up all those Firefox ad clicks to Bing?" To go beyond the call of duty and actually try to make Google happy by making Firefox worse would be a stupid move — it would only weaken Mozilla's bargaining position with Google.
- jmathai 15y ago1) Normal users do not understand URLs, at all. I agree with that but you can't contradict the underlying technology to make it easier for users to understand. That's just being lazy (in line with your other statements of Chrome envy, etc). Seems like patchwork to me. If users don't understand URLs then come up with a better way of explaining resources on the Internet to them.
- jigs_up 15y agoAre there no web developers working on Firefox or something? This is nonsense.
- danjwilson 15y agoLooking at the commit: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2af378ef814c#l8.33 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2af378ef814c#l8.33 ... they're only dropping the trailing slash if it corresponds to the root path. i.e. "www.google.com/" will become "www.google.com", but "www.google.com/webmasters/" will be untouched.
- gnoupi 15y ago"The basic purpose of hiding the common prefix, http:// http://, is to make URLs more visible. This will also help users to easily identify the website they are dealing with. Although, the URL prefix for encrypted pages (https:// https://) will be displayed as usual to avoid confusion." How is showing the prefix in one case and not the other avoiding confusion? If they want to get rid of it, they should get rid of it fully, like the others, and use a recognizable icon for the modes, but not show it and hid it depending on the case. That's the base of confusion, no?
- rorrr 15y agoChrome works that way, shows https:// https://, hides http:// http://. It's absolutely fine. The less stuff you have to look at, the more efficient you are.
- gnoupi 15y agoOk, but why would you have to see https, then? Wouldn't a lock icon be enough? If the idea is to drop the prefix because it's redundant and useless to most, then it's same for https. All what matters to the end user is that he is on a secure connection, I think.
- landhar 15y agoIf I had to guess, I would say that the idea behind this is to force the clueless user that doesn't know anything about the internet to write the https:// https:// when he is given a link that starts that way. Since there is no guaranty whatsoever that a website will redirect you to a secure connection without the user asking for it. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, just that I wouldn't be surprised if that's the idea behind it.
- jesstaa 15y agoChrome did this and it's problematic. When a user copies a url they are either required to add the http:// http:// themselves, or firefox could do what chrome did and automatically add the http:// http:// to the url when you copy it. This is a problem if you just want to copy the domain name and now you have to remove the added http:// http:// There is no advantage to this kind of change.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- stuartmemo 15y agoThere are at least couple of advantages: - less noise in the address bar - reminds the average user that they don't have to type http:// http:// to make a url work
- Tichy 15y agoI haven't typed the http:// http:// in Firefox for ages, seems they already add it automatically.
- Despite 15y agoHe's talking about when you select the URL to copy it to another application, say an email or instant message. At that time you need the http:// http:// so the other app knows it's an URL. Which means you're putting something in the clipboard which is not visible in the user's selection. Which is weird and bad.
- Tichy 15y agoMost apps seem to recognise URLs without http by now, though.
- suprgeek 15y agoAgree. This change is not one that will have a net positive impact. You do not need to type http:// http:// in the bar anyway so not showing will not suddenly boost readability.I would much rather they copied some of the ideas from Locationbar². The Domain highlighting is especially useful.
- ams6110 15y agoWhy show the address bar at all? Most users don't care about URLs, and they don't type them in, they have google as their home page and they navigate the internet via searches.
- jmathai 15y agoDing ding ding. Hence why Chrome is looking to eliminate the address bar :).
- pasbesoin 15y agoI wrote a longer response, but I'll summarize it to "this blows".