4 ms·

At least with Firefox you don't have to deal with things like this: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/i

At least with Firefox you don't have to deal with things like this: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467 When Firefox dropped http:// http:// at least they gave you the ability to turn it back on!

Permit 15y ago
I'm impressed by the passion with which people want http:// http:// back in their URLs. Perhaps it's tangential to the original thread, but why's it such a big deal?
- gwern 15y ago
  It gets in my way doing copy-paste. I don't entirely understand it - it seems to have something to do with whether Firefox is busy or not - but it's easy for a copied URL to simply not have the prefix, which breaks subsequent use pretty frequently (eg. 'google.com' is not a useful Markdown link while 'http://google.com http://google.com is).
  - Permit 15y ago
    As mentioned, when you copy from the URL bar, you get the http:// http:// prefix so this is a non-issue.
    - gwern 15y ago
      Did you not read what I wrote? That does not always happen.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > but why's it such a big deal? Because people copy&paste URLs all the time, and without the http:// http:// they dont work where pasted. Not having http:// http:// when youre copy-pasting feels like a part of your URL is missing. What I dont know is for whom they are hiding http:// http://? I'd guess there are 2 types of users, those who need the URL, then they need it complete, including the http:// http://, and those who dont need the URL to be visible at all (except maybe the domain name), like they dont need the current path in Explorer. But who exactly needs half an URL which is then only magically completed upon C&P-ing? And those who allegedly dont need http:// http://, why do they need the part after the TLD? From their POV, the arguments part is even more useless than http:// http://.
  - joshuacc 15y ago
    Lack of a superfluous http:// http:// is one of the things that I love about Chrome. And, for the record, it is included when you copy from the URL bar in every version I've seen on Windows.
    - smacktoward 15y ago
      > for the record, it is included when you copy from the URL bar Yes, but this is part of what makes the "feature" so annoying for usability obsessives such as myself. It makes copy & paste work differently in the URL bar than they do everywhere else and in every other application. Normally copy only copies the text you select. Now when you paste you not only paste the text you selected, but some extra, previously unseen text as well. I know that once you hide the "http:// http:// you pretty much have to do copy & paste this way, to avoid people pasting incomplete URLs, but it still feels weird, at least to me...
    - sbierwagen 15y ago
      Unless you got the URL from the history search, but didn't actually visit the page. In that case, it omits the http:// http://
  - sp332 15y ago
    In both FF and Chrome, copying includes the http:// http:// to the clipboard, so it's all there when you paste. So that's not an issue at all.
- amalcon 15y ago
  Because https is still included. It needs to be, so that users know it's a secure connection. This makes https URLs appear more crufty than http URLs. This, in turn, can be used as an excuse to be insecure. The fewer such excuses there are, the better.
thomasgerbe 15y ago
I will take that 'issue' over the sluggishness of Firefox on my Macbook any day of the week.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Who cares? The only use case people were complaining about was copy/paste not inserting the http:// http://, which it does now. What, exactly, is the issue, and why are people still whining about it?
- fletchowns 15y ago
  That's not the point, the point is that Firefox still gives you the choice, while Chrome devs don't think you should have a choice.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Chrome's FOSS, but it's not driven by the FOSS mentality like FF is. Choice is great, but when it interferes with UX one or the other has to go. Google is a consumer app company, so they went with simplicity and a clean interface. That's their right. We aren't living in the MS EEE days anymore. You always have the choice to use a different browser. Hell, if you care that much, you can download the source, re-enable the http:// http:// display, and compile it yourself. I really fail to see the problem, here. Your complaint is that there's no practical difference whatsoever, but that you want to have the choice. That seems to be a pretty minor thing to be kvetching about.
    - fletchowns 15y ago
      I didn't make any comment or complaint about the practical difference...
      - zobzu 15y ago
        whats funny is you got downvotedand his hateful, not so relevant comment like go compile it us upvoted. figures !
        redthrowaway 15y ago
        In what sense was my comment hateful? Insensitive, perhaps even impolite, sure. But hateful?

Permit 15y ago

I'm impressed by the passion with which people want http:// http:// back in their URLs. Perhaps it's tangential to the original thread, but why's it such a big deal?

gwern 15y ago
It gets in my way doing copy-paste. I don't entirely understand it - it seems to have something to do with whether Firefox is busy or not - but it's easy for a copied URL to simply not have the prefix, which breaks subsequent use pretty frequently (eg. 'google.com' is not a useful Markdown link while 'http://google.com http://google.com is).
- Permit 15y ago
  As mentioned, when you copy from the URL bar, you get the http:// http:// prefix so this is a non-issue.
  - gwern 15y ago
    Did you not read what I wrote? That does not always happen.
muuh-gnu 15y ago
> but why's it such a big deal? Because people copy&paste URLs all the time, and without the http:// http:// they dont work where pasted. Not having http:// http:// when youre copy-pasting feels like a part of your URL is missing. What I dont know is for whom they are hiding http:// http://? I'd guess there are 2 types of users, those who need the URL, then they need it complete, including the http:// http://, and those who dont need the URL to be visible at all (except maybe the domain name), like they dont need the current path in Explorer. But who exactly needs half an URL which is then only magically completed upon C&P-ing? And those who allegedly dont need http:// http://, why do they need the part after the TLD? From their POV, the arguments part is even more useless than http:// http://.
- joshuacc 15y ago
  Lack of a superfluous http:// http:// is one of the things that I love about Chrome. And, for the record, it is included when you copy from the URL bar in every version I've seen on Windows.
  - smacktoward 15y ago
    > for the record, it is included when you copy from the URL bar Yes, but this is part of what makes the "feature" so annoying for usability obsessives such as myself. It makes copy & paste work differently in the URL bar than they do everywhere else and in every other application. Normally copy only copies the text you select. Now when you paste you not only paste the text you selected, but some extra, previously unseen text as well. I know that once you hide the "http:// http:// you pretty much have to do copy & paste this way, to avoid people pasting incomplete URLs, but it still feels weird, at least to me...
  - sbierwagen 15y ago
    Unless you got the URL from the history search, but didn't actually visit the page. In that case, it omits the http:// http://
- sp332 15y ago
  In both FF and Chrome, copying includes the http:// http:// to the clipboard, so it's all there when you paste. So that's not an issue at all.
amalcon 15y ago
Because https is still included. It needs to be, so that users know it's a secure connection. This makes https URLs appear more crufty than http URLs. This, in turn, can be used as an excuse to be insecure. The fewer such excuses there are, the better.

thomasgerbe 15y ago

I will take that 'issue' over the sluggishness of Firefox on my Macbook any day of the week.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Who cares? The only use case people were complaining about was copy/paste not inserting the http:// http://, which it does now. What, exactly, is the issue, and why are people still whining about it?

fletchowns 15y ago
That's not the point, the point is that Firefox still gives you the choice, while Chrome devs don't think you should have a choice.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Chrome's FOSS, but it's not driven by the FOSS mentality like FF is. Choice is great, but when it interferes with UX one or the other has to go. Google is a consumer app company, so they went with simplicity and a clean interface. That's their right. We aren't living in the MS EEE days anymore. You always have the choice to use a different browser. Hell, if you care that much, you can download the source, re-enable the http:// http:// display, and compile it yourself. I really fail to see the problem, here. Your complaint is that there's no practical difference whatsoever, but that you want to have the choice. That seems to be a pretty minor thing to be kvetching about.
  - fletchowns 15y ago
    I didn't make any comment or complaint about the practical difference...
    - zobzu 15y ago
      whats funny is you got downvotedand his hateful, not so relevant comment like go compile it us upvoted. figures !
      - redthrowaway 15y ago
        In what sense was my comment hateful? Insensitive, perhaps even impolite, sure. But hateful?