`s/www\.//g`

PJH

Google improves Chrome again by hiding those redundant www's in the URL bar...

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881410

#8:

Another case I ran into:

"subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com".

Completely wrong.

PJH

#27

Enter into the address bar:

http://www.example.www.example.com

It shortens it:

example.example.com

WTF? How does www.example.www.example.com === example.example.com?

coldandtired

Just last night I read the bug posted here from when Chrome removed 'http://' from the URL eight years' ago. Almost the exact same arguments from both sides.

PJH

@coldandtired said in `s/www\.//g`:

Almost the exact same arguments from both sides.

Yeah, but the protocol (thus port) number you're talking with is a tad different to which IP address you're planning on talking with...

pjh@desktop:~$ dig www.pool.ntp.org | grep "IN.*A\s"
dualstack.s2.shared.global.fastly.net. 10 IN A	151.101.18.217

pjh@desktop:~$ dig pool.ntp.org | grep "IN.*A\s"
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	176.58.88.120
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	195.195.221.100
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	194.80.204.184
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	129.250.35.251

Captain

@PJH Did they forget about ^?

sockpuppet7

Google plans to replace urls with the contents being signed iirc

Edit: this thing: https://www.ampproject.org/latest/blog/a-first-look-at-using-web-packaging-to-improve-amp-urls/

It will still be a URL, but it's no longer the URL your browser is downloading from. I believe it won't take long with this for your browser to be displaying something completely unrelated to a URL, this thing being abused in worse ways than URLs already are, and we have zalgo on the address bar.

PJH

@sockpuppet7 said in `s/www\.//g`:

I believe it won't take long with this for your browser to be displaying something completely unrelated to a URL

To be honest, you can get that effect with iframes.

Zerosquare

@sockpuppet7: Google is trying the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy to make sure their products (Chrome, AdWords, etc.) are advantaged, under the pretense of "making the Web better".

But because it's the-nice-Google instead of the-bad-MS, and they're a bit more subtle, lots of people are okay with that.

sockpuppet7

@Zerosquare I don't think that's still true, google is facing as much resistence as the MS collective used to get. There were a few threads complaining about google pushing for amp on hackernews.

Zerosquare

Google no longer has the "can do no evil" image (it took a lot of abuse to bury that myth), but it's still not viewed like MS was/is.

Back then, people on sites like HackerNews/Slashdot/etc. proudly told everyone how they went out of their way not to use any MS product.

Today, even the people opposed to AMP are probably using one or several other Google products.

Atazhaia

I'm so happy I'm using Firefox. Because while Firefox keeps getting better, Chrome keeps getting worse. It's like a cesspool of bad and downright malicious decisions going on at Google HQ.

Also, I noticed it's the same guy defending the removal of http:// that's back to defend removing www and m.

Zerosquare

Unfortunately, Firefox tends to copy lots of things Chrome does. And when they don't, they remove things and do major changes no one asked for.

They still think they can outdo Google like they outdid MS at one time. But they forget that it only worked because MS became complacent once IE6 reached near-hegemony and they stopped improving it.

Google's entire business is based on the Web. They're not going to make the same mistake. Playing catch-up to Chrome is a losing game ; they're never going to convince the democratic that Chrome is targeting to switch to a copycat.

Instead, they should realize the people who still use Firefox do that precisely because it's not Chrome, and they don't want it to become Chrome.

Parody

@Zerosquare said in `s/www\.//g`:

Unfortunately, Firefox tends to copy lots of things Chrome does. And when they don't, they remove things and do major changes no one asked for.
...
Instead, they should realize the people who still use Firefox do that precisely because it's not Chrome, and they don't want it to become Chrome.

Sadly true, which is why Mozilla is currently running an experiment where they send all of your browsing data to a third party with no restrictions on its use (and the code for the plugin published as unreadable minimized JavaScript) in trade for suggestions that are reportedly very bad.

End of support for Firefox Private Network | Firefox Private Network Help

Maybe we can just go back to randomly installing extensions that are TV ads?

anotherusername

@PJH said in `s/www\.//g`:

@coldandtired said in `s/www\.//g`:

Almost the exact same arguments from both sides.

Yeah, but the protocol (thus port) number you're talking with is a tad different to which IP address you're planning on talking with...
pjh@desktop:~$ dig www.pool.ntp.org | grep "IN.*A\s"
dualstack.s2.shared.global.fastly.net. 10 IN A	151.101.18.217
pjh@desktop:~$ dig pool.ntp.org | grep "IN.*A\s"
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	176.58.88.120
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	195.195.221.100
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	194.80.204.184
pool.ntp.org.		118	IN	A	129.250.35.251

Am I incorrect in remembering that by standard, www.example.com and example.com should point to exactly the same server? That's not to say that they will, since plenty of webmasters misconfigure their server's DNS records, but it's wrong if they don't.

Now, tacking www. onto what's already a subdomain, ...I don't know whether the standards say anything about that, but that's just plain silly.

magnusmaster

@Zerosquare The problem is that Mozilla wants Firefox to be a mainstream browser so they have a say in web standards, and to be mainstream you need to compete with Chrome.

anotherusername

@magnusmaster to be honest, I don't see the problem with deciding to hide the www. in URLs. There's undoubtedly going to be an option somewhere to enable/disable that feature, so there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with it.

Parody

@anotherusername said in `s/www\.//g`:

@magnusmaster to be honest, I don't see the problem with deciding to hide the www. in URLs. There's undoubtedly going to be an option somewhere to enable/disable that feature, so there's no reason for anyone to be unhappy with it.

Yeah, I flipped it last night: chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains

Zerosquare

@anotherusername:

it serves no real purpose -- typical users don't care about the URLs
it actually makes things worse, not better: showing something different from the real URL will mislead people who don't know about that "feature", and complicate troubleshooting

magnusmaster

@anotherusername I wasn't talking about hiding the www on urls. I think this is a bad idea for two reasons:

urls with no www and www sometimes go to a different page
they lie to the user which is extremely dangerous and can cause trouble

Deadfast

@anotherusername From the bug report:

An example of bad results from this in the wild: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second.

pie_flavor

I have no opinion on this other than that the titular regex seems to have been employed and they should only have done it if it's www.domain.tld format.
But reading that it also strips out m., and remembering that some sites actually have mobile versions that can be detected automatically, instead of global CSS waiting for your window to be 767px...

anotherusername

@magnusmaster said in `s/www\.//g`:

urls with no www and www sometimes go to a different page

@Deadfast said in `s/www\.//g`:

@anotherusername From the bug report:

An example of bad results from this in the wild: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second.

Zemm

@Deadfast said in `s/www\.//g`:

@anotherusername From the bug report:

An example of bad results from this in the wild: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second.

That seems more like a bug/misconfiguration than a real example? They both now redirect to https://www.citibank.com.sg/portal/bluehome/index.htm for me...

PJH

@anotherusername said in `s/www\.//g`:

Am I incorrect in remembering that by standard, www.example.com and example.com should point to exactly the same server?

Convention and/or convenience, possibly. Standard? No.

JBert

@Deadfast said in `s/www\.//g`:

From the bug report:
An example of bad results from this in the wild: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second.

I'm sure Chrome together with the "web community" will find a solution... like blocking access to any shoddily configured site.

MrL

@anotherusername said in `s/www\.//g`:

There's undoubtedly going to be an option somewhere to enable/disable that feature

Yeah, right.

antipattern

@MrL There is a setting. Not in the main settings section though, because who’d want to see their URLs not mangled:

chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains

Atazhaia

@antipattern Just wait until Chrome removes the ability to toggle that setting, because who'd want a customizable web browser?

Onyx

@Atazhaia said in `s/www\.//g`:

@antipattern Just wait until Chrome removes the ability to toggle that setting, because who'd want a customizable web browser?

sheds yet another tear for Opera 12

If you want customizable, your best option seems to be Vivaldi at this point. Which is an Electron based browser. Make of that what you will.

Deadfast

@antipattern said in `s/www\.//g`:

@MrL There is a setting. Not in the main settings section though, because who’d want to see their URLs not mangled:

chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains

First, they took away https but I didn't say a thing because there was a setting. Then they took away that setting...

MrL

@Onyx said in `s/www\.//g`:

@Atazhaia said in `s/www\.//g`:

@antipattern Just wait until Chrome removes the ability to toggle that setting, because who'd want a customizable web browser?

sheds yet another tear for Opera 12

If you want customizable, your best option seems to be Vivaldi at this point. Which is an Electron based browser. Make of that what you will.

Electron and Chromium based.

Atazhaia

@MrL said in `s/www\.//g`:

Electron and Chromium based.

Oh, so it wont come with the option to turn back the display of http:// I presume?

Jaloopa

@Onyx said in `s/www\.//g`:

@Atazhaia said in `s/www\.//g`:

@antipattern Just wait until Chrome removes the ability to toggle that setting, because who'd want a customizable web browser?

sheds yet another tear for Opera 12

If you want customizable, your best option seems to be Vivaldi at this point. Which is an Electron based browser. Make of that what you will.

Does it still get confused about whether keyboard shortcuts should apply to the application or the active webpage?

Onyx

@Jaloopa Last time I checked, the obvious ones worked fine. Though I think that overriding stuff like Ctrl+s from JS was still borked, as in the event got caught but preventDefault did bubkus so it triggered the browser's Save function as well. This might've been fixed, I'm too lazy to check right now though.

MrL

@Atazhaia said in `s/www\.//g`:

@MrL said in `s/www\.//g`:

Electron and Chromium based.

Oh, so it wont come with the option to turn back the display of http:// I presume?

Hard to say. They add customization where they can, but some retarded shit is baked into the engine.

@Jaloopa said in `s/www\.//g`:

Does it still get confused about whether keyboard shortcuts should apply to the application or the active webpage?

Not a problem for quite some time now. Although my shortcut customization is none atm.

Disclaimer: Vivaldi daily user.

HardwareGeek

@Deadfast said in `s/www\.//g`:

@anotherusername From the bug report:

An example of bad results from this in the wild: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second.

Yeah, but it's citibank, so going there in the first place is a bad idea.

boomzilla

@Onyx said in `s/www\.//g`:

sheds yet another tear for Opera 12

0_1537108970074_9711e52a-729f-4ade-bde4-b43beb951632-image.png

TwelveBaud

@boomzilla That's an interesting Firefox 4 skin you've got there...

Zecc

@TwelveBaud said in `s/www\.//g`:

4 skin

You wrote that on purpose, didn't you?

El_Heffe

@anotherusername said in `s/www\.//g`:

@Deadfast said in `s/www\.//g`:

@anotherusername From the bug report:

An example of bad results from this in the wild: https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second.

Technically, you are right.

"https://citibank.com.sg and https://www.citibank.com.sg are not the same site, and the first doesn't redirect to the second."

Is an example of

But, that brings us to the biggest problem that users face:
There are eleventy gazillion websites on the Internet. Many of them are broken and mis-configured. Many of them do stupid and/or non-standard shit. We have no control over that and we can't change it.

But Mr. Developer, who writes the code for a web browser, CAN control what his browser does. So don't do stupid pointless shit, like hiding part of the URL. Just stop it already.

LB_

Well I have Chrome installed on a new computer. On my previous existing install, I could see the https://www. part of URLs. On this install, I can't. Following the guidance of the internet, I disabled this flag:

However, this has had no effect on what I see. Even if I click into the URL bar it doesn't show the https://www. part, I have to cut and paste. Anyone happen to know what I need to do to get Chrome to stop lying to me?

Gąska

@LB_ switch to Firefox

anonymous234

@LB_ At the risk of sounding too obvious, have you tried restarting it?

LB_

As it turns out, I had to disable this flag:

Gąska

@LB_ what's the default here anyway? Common sense dictates upcoming features should be disabled by default, but that's exactly why I think that here it means enabled.

loopback0

@Gąska said in `s/www\.//g`:

@LB_ what's the default here anyway? Common sense dictates upcoming features should be disabled by default, but that's exactly why I think that here it means enabled.

Mine's set to Default and my URL bar shows https://www still.

LB_

@Gąska I am not sure, but having it set to "Default" fixes the URL issue but bricks the new tab page. My new tab page is just broken now. Oh well.

Tsaukpaetra

@LB_ said in `s/www\.//g`:

new tab page

What is that?

You actually use that for something?

boomzilla

@Tsaukpaetra said in `s/www\.//g`:

@LB_ said in `s/www\.//g`:

new tab page

What is that?

You actually use that for something?

I use mine all the time. Typically when I want to start a new search or to go to certain pages that I always go to (like checking the weather).

Zemm

@levicki said in `s/www\.//g`:

Now I want to register vanity www.www TLD and have an invisible domain!

If the title's regex is correct then something like googlewww.com would be interesting...