4 ms·

Isn't dropping trailing slashes a bit dangerous? They have different semantic meanings.

by dazzer 15y ago

jmathai 15y ago
Agree. 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 ago
  They'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 ago
    Not 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 ago
  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"? 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 ago
    I believe point 2) has not been emphasized enough.
    - jmathai 15y ago
      Yup, I hadn't thought of this until just now.
  - chc 15y ago
    I 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 ago
    1) 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 ago
Are there no web developers working on Firefox or something? This is nonsense.
danjwilson 15y ago
Looking 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.

Isn't dropping trailing slashes a bit dangerous? They have different semantic meanings.

by dazzer 15y ago

Isn't dropping trailing slashes a bit dangerous? They have different semantic meanings.

Agree. 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 ago
They'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 ago
  Not 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 ago
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"? 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 ago
  I believe point 2) has not been emphasized enough.
  - jmathai 15y ago
    Yup, I hadn't thought of this until just now.
- chc 15y ago
  I 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 ago
  1) 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 ago

Are there no web developers working on Firefox or something? This is nonsense.

danjwilson 15y ago

Looking 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.