Google Chrome Ditches Http://

I don't really like this move. I think it will keep newbies ignorant for even longer than usual.
 
No big deal for me, though I hope they will still display https.
 
www stands for world wide web, and is convention to point to the server that serves web pages. It's just like how ftp.example.com would go to the ftp server, and smtp.example.com goes to the simple mail transport protocol mail daemon, or pop goes to post office protocol.
 
djoye said:
I see it as dumbing things down. I also think MS dumbed-down Windows/users when they made it default to have file extensions hidden (WIN98 or WINXP they did this?) when they should have left them there so people would learn WTH an extension is and why it's bad to open a .VBS or .EXE file WITH AN MP3 ICON ON IT@#! OH, THAT'S NOT A DOT-MP3, IT'S AN EXECUTABLE, IT COULD CAUSE HARM.

:)
Click to expand...

Had to learn that the hard way back in 2000.
 
Zoomer said:
www stands for world wide web, and is convention to point to the server that serves web pages. It's just like how ftp.example.com would go to the ftp server, and smtp.example.com goes to the simple mail transport protocol mail daemon, or pop goes to post office protocol.
Click to expand...

No No No No No.

if and address was http://ftp.example.com - it would still go to the webserver since that is the PROTOCOL it is requesting - the name has nothing to do with it - it is just a textual monikor for an IP address (unless of course they have changed there ftp server to listen on port 80 - but then any good firewall doing SPI should block it).

whilst it is a convention (and a bad one at that) why do i need to type in www.example.com - if registered correctly and requesting on the same protocol then it should resolve to the same place as example.com for the default webserver for that domain - you could of course have a multitude of subdomains of www2.example.com and mail.example.com all resolving to different servers of course - but then those are different addresses and are specific to subdomains and not the default of the 2nd level.

To answer everyones question about road/cresent/avenue etc then you have missed the point since in the context then these are implicit usually in the name of the location (since whilst it may be a street or an avenue - it is still a road of some discription think name versus protocol).

Where all this becomes even more important is on properly configured SPI firewalls where they actually look into the packet content and will reject if the content does not contain the correct type of data for the protocol/port specified.
 
I've had my Firefox set up similarly for years. *shrug*

fxlocationbar2.png

fxlocationbar2.png


Though unlike Chrome, it will show the entire url if I hover my mouse over the address bar. Hopefully Google makes Chrome behave in a similar auto-hide fashion in a future build.

Thankfully, when you highlight the url in the address bar, Chrome does automatically append the http:// to the url when you copy it to the clipboard.
 
cyberjt said:
whilst it is a convention (and a bad one at that) why do i need to type in www.example.com - if registered correctly and requesting on the same protocol then it should resolve to the same place as example.com for the default webserver for that domain - you could of course have a multitude of subdomains of www2.example.com and mail.example.com all resolving to different servers of course - but then those are different addresses and are specific to subdomains and not the default of the 2nd level.
Click to expand...


For just about every site you visit, I'd be willing to bet you *don't* need to type www. Why? Because it's been common practice for years and years to have x.com point to the same IP address as www.x.com. Go try it out, I tried a few that I visit regularly and they all worked.
 
Spewn said:
For just about every site you visit, I'd be willing to bet you *don't* need to type www. Why? Because it's been common practice for years and years to have x.com point to the same IP address as www.x.com. Go try it out, I tried a few that I visit regularly and they all worked.
Click to expand...

I was not argueing that point - and yes those registered correctly do not need it as I originally stated should be the case. I was making the distinction between a human readable address instead of a an IP address and a protocol.
 
cyberjt said:
No No No No No.

if and address was http://ftp.example.com - it would still go to the webserver since that is the PROTOCOL it is requesting
Click to expand...

Sure, that works if the daemons are running on the same ip. If they are not on the same machine/nic, it's still possible with crazy port redirection tricks, but probably not worth the hassle. It's a *convention*.

Anyway, why are they so bent on saving 10 px? Last I checked, there's a couple thousand more of that on the address bar. Most are blank.
 
for common users HTTP:// is confusing. For us in IT, or like career, being able to substitute HTTP for other items is important. As long as you can still change it manually, I don't care what is displayed.
 
There are a number of reasons to remove the long protocol identifier... The most important being the few billion people that type is up to hundreds of times a day.

Do you guys have any idea the bandwidth we'd save if we didn't have to push all those http://'s around?
 
Zoson said:
There are a number of reasons to remove the long protocol identifier... The most important being the few billion people that type is up to hundreds of times a day.
Click to expand...

Who TYPES it? Man, it's not my fault people don't know wtf they're doing.
 
Spewn said:
Who TYPES it? Man, it's not my fault people don't know wtf they're doing.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter if you ctrl-enter it or cut/paste etc... While this solution from google is not actually 'removing' it(just hiding it rather), actually removing it from the spec would mean an assumption of http if no protocol is specified.

The designer of the whole ordeal has this to say about shortening urls though:
In a recent interview with the New York Times, Berners-Lee said that the use of two forward-slash characters in the URL was unnecessary and made web site addresses needlessly long.

He explained that the intent was to separate the protocol name (such as HTTP or FTP) from the rest of the address, but as it turned out only the colon was necessary.
Click to expand...
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1558680/berners-lee-regrets-double-slash
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
That wasn't even close to funny. Good try. Heil Hittler.

Kiss my Ass.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you see this as being racist, but Polish isn't race (its a culture and country) and I don't harbor any ill towards them, just tend to pick on them, a lot since I have a polish friend and we pick on each other and I guess that spills over in my sense of humor, I'm sorry. Calling me a Nazi, I'm German and that is offensive to me.

I tend to be blunt, and most countries have laws against sticking your entire cabinet into the same airplane (and your head of the church, and your head of the military, and you etc.).
 
And I meant to say "and your etc.)" not you which sound very wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top