Google kills 'http' URLs; about time to follow suit?

By | April 19, 2010, 3:29am PDT

Summary: Google plans to kill off ‘http://’ in later builds of Chrome. Is it about time other browsers followed suit and made web addresses simpler?

Google’s Chrome browser will no longer include http:// as part of the URL field. It was only six months ago that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, admitted that the double slash punctuation in the URL was “a mistake”, and Google have seem to have acknowledged this revelation.

However as OSNews points out, this has indeed ruffled some veteran’s feathers. Nowadays, FTP, HTTPS and other protocols which are non-HTTP are still used - iTunes and Magnet links for example. But Google’s stance on this could lead to a further roll-out of changes to other browsers and set a Microsoft-Mozilla “RSS icon” precedent.

I don’t think it’s that much of a deal, frankly. When have you ever heard on the television, radio, or in print media the use of ‘http://’? You don’t, because it’s practically unnecessary, and seeing as Chrome is ‘the search browser’, the need for manually inputting URL’s in my eyes has been questioned for years with Google being able to pretty much find exactly what you want, when you want it. 

With the changes in Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3.x and the highlighting of secure websites, and anti-phishing filters which enable the user to see the full address path, I can see why people may be hesitant to adopt the new non-http approach. However taking out the http:// bit will have little difference, secure sites will still be highlighted as such, and sub-domains will simply come before the domain name and replace the www.

Sure, it might look a bit odd at first and take some getting used to visually, but at least we won’t be getting rid of the forward slashes altogether. What do you think?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
115
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google kills 'http' URLs; about time to follow suit?
jayjay2011 28th Sep
Awesome! great write ups. I enjoy reading it. Keep it up! forex trading
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
Ludovit 19th Apr 2010
We're spending time actually thinking about this?

If you don't like using http:// then don't ... any standard browser will take the address you've typed in, connect to the remote server, determine what type of server it is (http, ftp, etc) and connect using the appropriate protocol.

Voila ... discussion over, it does it now - the only difference I could see is an option in your browsers setting to show the protocol tag (http:// or ftp:// etc)

Ludo
0 Votes
+ -
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly.....
mhbowman@... 19th Apr 2010
Kinda like having a discussion about whether or not to include www.

As a general rule:

Whatever works best and easiest. Forget the rest.
Disagree .... IE already has problems with going to alternate ports..

that is.. http://192.168.1.1:8080 ... etc...

often times if not manually typing http:// I can not access several special sites that I go to that require alternate ports .. doesn't matter if I use IP or Hostname the same thing happens, IE flubs, and just comes across with "page cannot be displayed".

BUT ... the second I put http:// in front of it, IE has no problem showing me content..

Additionally the "auto anything" concept is enherently flawed .. believing that IE could identify the server type (http / ftp / etc) again relies SOLELY on the server running the requested service at the standard ports (por 80/443/21) and not to mention that you can cause other programs to open from URL's such as the default telnet or ssh clients by specifying telnet:// ... etc..

so.. 1) browsers NEED to support the prefix
2) they *can* default to port 80 ... but need to be able to go beyond.
0 Votes
+ -
http:// isn't required in IE
Me_too 21st Apr 2010
http:// isn't required in IE, all you need to do is use alt-enter or is it shift-enter or ctrl-enter. Gee, I don't remember which it is because I haven't used IE except for Win updates and for that I don't type anything in the address line, just click on Win updates in the start menu or start>all programs menu depends on which computer I am using. wink
0 Votes
+ -
Not limited to IE
Garrett Williams 25th Apr 2010
Ctrl+enter works in all my web browsers for auto-
completing a standard url, not just IE.
0 Votes
+ -
I mean, why are there more responses to this article?

The article is clear, your comments rational.

I like seeing the http or https or ftp because I am used to, but I rarely, if ever, type it in my browser. The browser and DNS do the address completion for me.

The way the human brain is wired, most users don't even see the http, even when it is there.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't get why Berners-Lee would acknowledge the mistake of the "//" when the "WWW" prefix was much dumber.

If EVERY Web address starts with "WWW", then it's obviously useless as an identifier and should have been eliminated. Even worse is the fact that they picked the only multi-syllable (and THREE syllables, no less) letter in the dictionary and repeated it three times.

So for years people pointlessly said "dubbelyoo dubbelyoo dubbelyoo" before every address. Great judgment.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, "WWW" is a pain to pronounce
FelicityPilchard 20th Apr 2010
Not all URLs have www, it's not required. If it does, I just say "Wibbly" (once). If someone doesn't understand, that's OK -- no-one will remember a URL I tell them anyway; if it matters, I'll end up writing it. But I couldn't be bothered saying "dubbelyoo dubbelyoo dubbelyoo".
0 Votes
+ -
To start with it isn't WWW, it's www. happy

You could say triple-dubbelyoo. ;D

We had a dubbelyoo in the White House and no one had any trouble saying dubbelyoo then or after dubbelyoo left. wink

Just me-too LOL.
0 Votes
+ -
"www" wasn't part of a standard as such
erik.soderquist 20th Apr 2010
the www. prefix came about as a convention to identify what the host did.

file transfer protocol servers were named ftp.
world wide web servers were names www.

and these were usually aliases for convenience.

and not all web servers did have the www. prefix, causing confusion for those that assumed it was a standard and inserted the www. for hosts that did not use it.
0 Votes
+ -
wibbly
William_P 20th Apr 2010
That is exactly why, when I hosted my own web page, I made it started with "web." No wibblies, please.
@Ludovit How can you get to http://ftp.kernel.org/ without typing in the 'http://'? Your understanding of how the browser works is incorrect -- it cannot connect to the remote server to determine what type of server it is. How would it know what port to connect to?
0 Votes
+ -
I rarely use that anyway
jpr75_z 19th Apr 2010
Browsers automatically put the http:// in for you. The only time you would need to manually use it would be for a secure site using https:// Not seeing it in the URL field will hardly be noticed by most users.
0 Votes
+ -
Echo that
JJ Brannon 19th Apr 2010
I prefer seeing that added "s" than a padlock icon.

JJB
0 Votes
+ -
Padlock vs https:
William_P 19th Apr 2010
I look at the https: to verify secure before I hunt for that padlock icon.
0 Votes
+ -
I look at the URL to decide if a site is secure. Only EV-SSL certs light the bar up green. The padlock needs to become more visible - perhaps taking its place to the left of the address where https:// would be.
0 Votes
+ -
relax, guys....
Rick S._z 19th Apr 2010
This would absolutely NOT be relevant to https:// connections.

I agree with all the experts, make "http://" an automatic default, OPTIONAL (and totally unnecessary) in URLs. All of the other protocol specifications (e.g., https://, ftp://) would still be necessary to show that a non-default protocol is being specified.
0 Votes
+ -
I most assuredly want that security!
fjpoblam 19th Apr 2010
Yep, they can get rid of http, but ONLY if they danged well
better gimme SOMETHING to show me the security of
"https" prominent and visible!!!

In fact, I want ANY protocol differing from plain ol' vanilla
http clearly marked, dagnabit!
Just because you rarely use http ... that's reason enough to rid the world of the prefix..

this is the same arrogance that took over at Firefox when one developer did away with the "Properties" option on the "right click" menu in Firefox..

that is .. you see something (image, url, even a blank page) you RIGHT click that something, and then can select "Properties" ... this tries to tell you something about the item you right clicked.. but oh no.... that's not used every day by *some* people, so this developer made the argument that its useless or unneccessary ... etc.. and stripped it out of the core code .. now anyone wanting it (in firefox) needs to download a plugin ...

Same case for http ... the browser *MUST* continue to support the use of it, it should always display the prefix **IF** the currently displayed URL isn't http ... so that you the user CAN look up there and see that you're on an FTP Server rather than HTTP ... and, as I've stated further above, IE doesn't handle Alternate ports for HTTP very well without explicitly putting the HTTP:// at the front of the url.

Even if you break down your own subject line you yourself should realize it can't be gotten rid of ... your own subject says that you RARELY USE ... that means you DO in fact use it some times.. so there MUST be a reason to keep it around.
@jpr75_z That's not true. Go to any typical browser and try to get to http://ftp.kernel.org without typing the http:// part.
The problem is four fold. First, they replace the http://, but not https://, ftp:// or anything else. So you have an inconsistent treatment of different protocols. Second, they replace the http:// with a globe icon. Okay, but other browsers are going to have different icons, adding more confusion. If all browsers added icons for all protocols, how would you ever know what is being used? And third, cut and paste of the new URLs is very difficult, making it nearly impossible move the URLs into other programs. And if people get used to the URLs without the protocol and start using them that way, you completely lose hyperlinking in non browsers because other programs will not be able to distinguish URLs.

The trick with the cut and paste would be to reveal the whole URL anytime the cursor is in the URL. But that isn't what was done.
0 Votes
+ -
Cut and Paste -- Really?
daengbo 19th Apr 2010
Firstly, every program I use seems to handle URLs
without http:// just fine. Secondly, the address
bar puts a formatted copy in the clipboard,
meaning that your OS or app should recognize that
it's a link by the type.

Have you had any real problems cutting and
pasting? Which applications and OSes had problems?
0 Votes
+ -
Protocol
William_P 19th Apr 2010
I agree in principle, if not for the reasons you cite. The http:// is the protocol, and good browsers will be able to accept typing rss://, ftp://, https:// and handle them appropriately. Leaving out "https://" should NOT become part of the standard, but merely an accepted "default" for the browser application. "If you don't tell me what protocol to use, I'll assume HTTP."
0 Votes
+ -
I've several sites I go to ... that require alternate ports to be specified .. one example, Winamp's ShoutCast server ... usually off some port other than 80 .... in every version of IE i can remember, if I don't manually put http:// before the URL with port info, ie just bombs.

e.g.: http://192.168.1.1:8080 without the http:// .... IE would just return "page can not be displayed" (and yes, I mean for valid IP's or hostnames running something on port 8080 and supposed to be accessed with the HTTP protocol)
0 Votes
+ -
This change will not stand without modification
TriangleDoor Updated - 19th Apr 2010
There is sound reasoning behind displaying the protocol portion of a URI in a box that is supposed to display URIs.

No, your browser doesn't "figure out" which protocol to use--it defaults to HTTP *if it happens to be written to do so.* Without protocol specification and display functionality, if a site is using HTTP-S, FTP, or another protocol--not to mention a non-default port for the protocol defaulted to or specified--you're out of luck, or--worse--you may connect insecurely when you thought you were connecting securely.

"Autofiguring out" a protocol by poking at the server would (A) go against the need to be able to intentionally connect securely and *only* securely, (B) increase net traffic unnecessarily, (C) likely fail often, depending on server settings, and (D) give rise to a new class of browser foolability by The Bad Guys.

I predict not only failure to salute, but return cannon fire at the raising of this experimental flag. If this becomes a Chrome feature that cannot be turned off, I will go back to Firefox and stay away from Chrome until full URIs display, or at least an option to turn it on, returns.
0 Votes
+ -
There is no reason what so ever for the "http://" showing in the address bar, just like "WWW" should be removed too.

It is clinging to legacy ways and old customs that holds back the flow of information and the growth of the Internet and computers in general. From some of you posting, I would guess you still think we need Parallel ports and support for IDE drives still *rolls eyes*

Imagine if you will, a day when I can just type "google" and *snap* I am on google's page. Type/say 'IBM internal' and viola I am on the IBM company/internal log in page.
0 Votes
+ -
Not quite true
silentblue 19th Apr 2010
I do see for user easy use, the http:// can be hidden and unless you say another protocal.

Now the "www" if you know how DNS worked, then you would not of made this comment!

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System) for those that don't know DNS.

To summerise DNS is a big phone book for computers to put what we type in the address bar in to IP address that computers understand and talk to each other with.
0 Votes
+ -
Not Quite True (DNS)
MBoczek 19th Apr 2010
Many sites silently handle both "www" and non-"www" prefixed requests. Either by accepting both header requests or redirecting to a common site. Try zdnet.com or www.zdnet.com as an example.

I don't think I've actually typed in "http://" for at least 3 years - never found any problems.

I DO like the idea of just typing a corporate name and having it resolve to the company web-space. (Room for a corporate tld? i.e. ".intel" anyone?)
0 Votes
+ -
Not Quite True (DNS)
William_P 19th Apr 2010
Only if the server was configured correctly to accept the request with or without the www.

Type in projectmanagers.net. Then type in www.projectmanagers.net. I consider this a flaw with the web site.
0 Votes
+ -
Nothing's been outdated yet
Get-Smart Updated - 19th Apr 2010
First off, assuming "http://" or "https://" in lieu of other protocol schemes is something all browser I have used will try, if it isn't explicitly given.

Secondly, "www" *cannot* be removed from the name. It's a convention that *many* web sites use, but not all of them. Many of the servers I use require an explicitly named system and custom port number, both for security and administration.

If the web browser is going to continue to be the Internet "Swiss Army knife", it will have to maintain the ability to respond to discrete protocol schemes or it loses its blades. If you ever worked with web sites that were accessible only internally, you would know that not everything is searchable; in fact, in a development environment, damn near *nothing* is searchable.

While you can make some common assumptions about what the user intended, a way must be provided to preserve allowing entering an explicit URI. No debate.

Chrome did give me a first: I now have a new list of browsers I won't use.

@overbear: You're welcome to throw out technology and be short-sighted if you want. For those of us who don't buy the shiny new car hot off the assembly line every year, we'll still use what works.
0 Votes
+ -
"Outdated" a much abused term
hiraghm@... 19th Apr 2010
All but one of my drives are IDE, save my SCSI drive in my Amiga.

7 of my 10 computers have parallel ports.

Isn't there a book about changing protocol names like this? Something like "Internet for Dummies" or "Computers for Dummies" or "Making Life Simple for Those Dummies too Lazy to Think"?
0 Votes
+ -
Roll your eyes at yourself
NIBONED 19th Apr 2010
@overbear: I'm rolling my eyes at you now.
You mock because you don't understand.
The reason why http://, ftp://, etc. are there is to distinguish between the different protocols that browsers can handle such as ftp, secure ftp, http, mailto, and many others. You don't see these because they are usually embedded in links. Don't mock what you don't understand.
0 Votes
+ -
Relative vs. absolute links
over2sd Updated - 19th Apr 2010
Links are a good point. The browser knows the difference between a relative and an absolute link by whether there is a protocol in front of it. Without http://, is there any way for the browser to determine this? (that doesn't waste bandwidth)...

Another crazy article on ZDNet. I saw the title and said, "WTF are they on about with this?" I was not surprised.
0 Votes
+ -
Thoughts
CobraA1 19th Apr 2010
"No, your browser doesn't 'figure out' which
protocol to use"

While it was true in the early days that
browsers supported a bunch of protocols -
that's really no longer the case.

Today's browsers support relatively few
protocols, with most of the "different"
protocols being handed off to other
applications rather than being handled by the
browser. It's really not the case anymore that
the browser has a large number of protocols to
deal with.

Connecting securely is already indicated with a
padlock and/or a green bar. If a person can't
look for a lock or a green bar, I doubt they'll
be looking for the "s" in "https."

. . . and this is not "autofiguring" the
protocol any more than browsers already do -
it's already the case that they'll attempt to
figure out the protocol if you don't give them
one explicitly. This is just a cosmetic change,
for all intents and purposes.

. . . and if I'm reading the related bug report
correctly, Google's implementation of this does
in fact copy the protocol if you copy the URL
to the clipboard.
0 Votes
+ -
like: adding a missing Search Box? feature like Opera Turbo mode? or 'real' extensions like in Firefox?
0 Votes
+ -
What about ftp and others?
Eriamjh 19th Apr 2010
Apple uses FTP in browser (although it doesn't work very well) and VNC:// for screen sharing.

But I agree that http:// is useless.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not up to Apple.
dgurney 19th Apr 2010
That's what every browser uses when it supports FTP.
0 Votes
+ -
Need for manually inputting URLs
Palmetto_CharlieSpencer 19th Apr 2010
"...the need for manually inputting URL?s in my eyes has been questioned for years with Google being able to pretty much find exactly what you want,..."

Unless I already know the URL. I can manually enter 'companyname' and press CTRL+ENTER (to insert the 'www' and '.com') a darn sight faster than I can search for it.
0 Votes
+ -
Not in Chrome
daengbo 19th Apr 2010
Type the company name, and you'll have the
company's url immediately in the drop down box,
whether the url is in the www.companyname.com
format, www.company-name.com format, or www.what-
the-hell-were-we-thinking-buying-this-url.com
format.

No user search involved.
0 Votes
+ -
Make it easiest!
hiraghm@... 19th Apr 2010
That's too much work!

I want a web browser that, when I grunt, it takes me to the website I want to see.

Like, if I grunt "ugh!", then it takes me to the microsoft website.

Or if I grunt "ugh!", then it'll take me to the google website.

Or if I grunt "ugh!", then it'll take me to the Apple store's website.

Imagine how fast one could surf while on the toilet! Especially when constipated!

Utterly ridiculous and "outdated" to expect me to put in any more effort than to grunt "ugh!", just to go to a different URL!
0 Votes
+ -
I guess then you don't build computers..

ECS - Elitegroup Computer Systesm website is ecsusa.com ...
Soltek - they're no longer in business but their website was not soltek.com

there have been many others over the years with the same issue ... so presuming www and .com is a bad idea ... especially with malware sites being registered for common misspellings .. etc..

ever seen the "this domain parked" type pages? they are there for a reason.. and although relatively few and far between, its still a reason that protocol prefix must be supported and respected.
0 Votes
+ -
Becomes like telephony
techwatcher Updated - 19th Apr 2010
Most country's phone systems are 'smart' enough that they allow a user calling within a local area to bypass country/city/area codes and just dial the local number. Having a default protocol works the same way as long as I am able to enter a different (FTP, HTTPS, etc.) prefix when needed. Ideally, an address that includes the HTTP would still be recognized to support passthrough from links, etc.; it just wouldn't be required.
0 Votes
+ -
Telephony Protocol
William_P 19th Apr 2010
Not quite a good analogy. You can connect whatever telephone device you want to a phone line, dial the number appropriately, and make a connection. But...
The phone must send a "off-hook" signal first, then a sequence of precise DTMF tones to the phone switch. When connected, electrical pulses at a certain voltage must be sent and decoded without damaging the receiver.

Likewise, you can connect using any browser you wish, and enter the appropriate web address using standard characters that the DNS can resolve. Then the sequence of characters that is sent back and forth must be of the correct protocol for the web browser to 1) request the information, and 2) render the information received.

Leave out the protocol identifier, and the web browser is talking garbage with the information resource.
0 Votes
+ -
"most countries", but not the United States
dgurney Updated - 19th Apr 2010
"Most country's phone systems are 'smart' enough that they allow a user calling within a local area to bypass country/city/area codes and just dial the local number."

But the U.S. is going BACKWARD. Just look at the areas where they've implemented these BS "overlays." Just because there's another area code in the same geographic area, everyone suddenly has to dial the area code even when they're calling the same one. This obviously makes no sense, since the system knows which area code you're dialing FROM, and it knows you're calling within the same area code because you didn't press 1 first.

In some cases, stupidity leads to people getting killed. In this case, it simply leads to millions of people being inconvenienced every day for no reason. And nobody is doing anything about it. Seriously, call or write to your phone company and demand to know why you have to dial the same area code you're calling from.
0 Votes
+ -
No need to call your phone company ...
bkshort@... 19th Apr 2010
The phone company is not responsible for the requirement that you dial the area code for all calls. Regulators have tended to impose that condition because they don't want to make having a new area code less desirable than having an existing area code. Since, at first, there will be relatively few numbers in the new area code, subscribers in the old area code will have few occasions to dial an area code. On the other hand, virtually every call by subscribers in the new area code will need an area code because they'll be calling people in the old area code. So, regulators simply require that everyone dial an area code.

Personally, I don't know what the big deal is about having to dial an area code. Dialing an area code is optional in my area (201), and I tend to do it out of habit. It takes, what, a fraction of second to punch three extra digits?
0 Votes
+ -
someone actually dials?
QuimaxW 20th Apr 2010
I don't remember the last time I punched a number into my phone more than once. My house phones can all share a phone directory (I still want to sync my cell to it to, but alas...) so it's a dial once and it's in the address book.

I barely know my own phone number anymore...
0 Votes
+ -
dial area code
William_P 21st Apr 2010
Back when this first came out--in the mid 90's--there was a bit of a problem for about a month. We got a new area code without the 0/1 middle digit, 334. My mother-in-law, from rural Oklahoma where the phone company required dialing 1 for toll calls within the area code, could not call us for about a month.

You see, she would dial 1-334-555-1212 in an attempt to call us. However, her local exchange thought she was dialing the 334 exchange in the 918 area code, and she kept connecting to 918-334-5551.

Add to that, there's the requirement that people know when they are making a local toll call (the original reason for the 1 prefix).

Thus, the need to dial the area code even if you are calling your own area code.
0 Votes
+ -
About time but...
rhonin 19th Apr 2010
I would think that this is a long time in coming but there should be a change to all prefix type displays (s, ftp...) so the user is presented with a standard view, not a hodge podge of some do - some dont.

Good step, just not quite enough.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't need it until you need it...
JoeMama_z 19th Apr 2010
what about non-standard port HTTP/s connections?
Awesome! great write ups. I enjoy reading it. Keep it up! forex trading

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix