Like, big companies run separate servers on the two domains.
That's besides the fact where if you have www.example.www.example.com, it rewrites to example.example.com.
user2 - it's fine, here is a screenshot of it working (while showing "beautified" https://www.citibank.com.sg)
how is that not confusing?
Can we even call them address bars anymore?
And blaming website owners for working within the bounds of published standards is ridiculous and you know it.
Which is why technical specifications aren't written or maintained by non-technical people.
> Users expect www.example.com to equal example.com.
No, they don't. The expect that the address they write down works when they type it back in the address bar though.
> If a website isn't redirecting one to the other, they, are doing something that is incredibly anti-user and it is a good thing that google/apple are forcing them to do it different.
You keep claiming this with any sort of evidence or backing. This may be anecdotal, but I worked as tech support for a large org (300+ users) most of my career and have dealt with most types of users. I've only seen them interact with the address bar in one of two ways: explorer shortcuts on the desktop/browser bookmarks (few) or stick-it notes on the monitor or keyboard (many). I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that not 5% of them are aware that google redirects to www.
At least for those users, none of them will benefit from chrome's mishandling of www. Many of them will suffer from it. I'd be willing to stand corrected with a proper study though.
Also, subdomains aren't only used to make http urls pretty, they are intended to be used to refer to actual physical hardware hosts that belong to a given domain. All published standards I know of are written with this in mind. None of them mandate that www be synonymous to the parent domain, not even those responsible for web technologies. Organizations that follow standards are not at fault for following standards.
If having two different hosts on www and the parent domain was truly "incredibly anti-user" (a dubious claim), let google introduce a rfc at relevant standards bodies and have it go through proper scrutiny first.
It's the same with autocomplete earlier this year. One day Google decides to ignore autocomplete="off" and all hell breaks lose.
Interesting to note, they have reverted this change. Google now respects autocomplete="off" in some scenarios (i.e. when autofill is not triggered via name attribute).
Note: autocomplete !== autofill
There will always be tradeoffs in advancing usability. This is objectively a small one. The problem is the unstated lack of appreciation for the value of usability improvements, because it's usually a more technically sophisticated person criticizing it who's comfortable with the way things have been. If you care about usability, that is an immensely net positive gain.
m.tumblr.com IS NOT a mobile variant of tumblr.com
I kinda wished I had that blog now so I could put a proof of concept up to show why this is a very bad idea from a phishing perspective.
This is a tradeoff -- continuing to support already-confusing differences is not worth the loss of the ease-of-use gain referenced in the grandparent.
The golden age of the Internet is already dead, guys. We're unfortunately over the hump.