SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google Achieves Its Goal of Erasing the WWW Subdomain From Chrome
With the release of Chrome 79, Google completes its goal of erasing www from the browser by no longer allowing Chrome users to automatically show the www trivial subdomain in the address bar.
When Chrome 76 was released, Google decided to no longer show the www "trivial subdomain" in the address bar when visiting a web site. This means, that if you are visiting www.bleepingcomputer.com, Chrome would only show bleepingcomputer.com in the address bar...
[...] According to a Google engineer, www is considered a trivial subdomain because "this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases".
Many users, though, felt that this was a security issue, could be confusing for users, and is technically incorrect because www.domain.com is not always the same host as domain.com.
So is this a distinction without a difference or a real issue?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @04:35AM (5 children)
Since I've already passed your last hurdle. I'll address your point. The RFCs are the authoritative source, short of market capture. The whole reason for the RFC is so that the networked systems use the same rules and speak the same language. If you are trying to write a server and your response does not follow the RFC, then the client won't properly understand you. Likewise, if you have a client send a non-complaint request, the server won't follow it either. Best case scenario is that they guess correctly (e.g. see various handling of "ICY 200 OK" responses), worst case you get garbage or a cryptic socket error when they disconnect on you.
And, by the way, implementation-specific socket options have nothing to do with that common language. You can implement a server, even an HTTP one, just fine without either SO_KEEPALIVE or SO_LINGER. You can't do it without following the protocols. The way you imagine it is that recipes should include instructions on what buttons to push to turn on your oven. But, I'll check the man page [debian.org] anyway. OH what is that? The synopsis says the slash at the start of the absolute path is optional. And no mention of your SERVICE.DOMAIN.TLD domain name setup either. And some of that BNF looks familiar. It is almost like they copied it from the RFC.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday December 18 2019, @02:04AM (4 children)
There is NO requirement that everyone on the net "speak the same language." Or have you forgotten AlterNIC? Great idea that temporarily broke the monopoly on domain names. We really should bring it back.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19 2019, @08:27AM (3 children)
AlterNIC was speaking the same language. They were an alternate root, but they still used the same DNS protocol as the other roots, including the Network Information Center. It literally wouldn't have worked off the shelf and been an even larger failure if it hadn't done so.
Fact of the matter is that if the server/clients/peers don't speak the same language in the form of common standards, then they cannot communicate with each other reliably. For example, if you send, "/favicon.ico\r\n" to a web server or "GET /images/logo.png HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n" to a gopher server, they won't understand you and give you garbage, if anything. And, as I mentioned, if not for market capture making you the de facto standard, the RFCs are as close as you'll get to that common baseline for most web related things that don't have standards elsewhere.
Besides, your just salty that your precious man pages proved you wrong because you didn't bother to look it up.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 19 2019, @06:33PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19 2019, @08:14PM (1 child)
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that HTTP is the only protocol that runs over TCP/IP (which is actually two different protocols that can be used independently) or UDP? If so, I've got news for you [wikipedia.org].
If you are instead saying that the transport network layer doesn't really care what is carried in it in the designated place on a higher layer protocol as long as it conforms to the requirements of its own layer standard. Then yes, that is what they are designed to do, but that doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily provide all data and not meet the requirements at your level. And that doesn't mean that servers working at the application layer will magically read your mind when you don't follow the common standards for that particular protocol.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 19 2019, @08:42PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.