Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Apr 2010 11:57 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
Permalink for comment 419649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-06-19
I've been running the latest Chrome builds (currently 5.0.375.9 dev) and I didn't notice this until now. In the context of a web browser, there are only two reasons it would matter to me personally.
1. If I copy a link from the address bar, I will certainly want the starting "http://", currently the version I use of Chrome does this.
2. If this web browser also functions as a browser of other URI types, then the other URI type identifiers are necessary. For example, if the web browser is also a file browser it may (or may not) display the starting "http://" if when I navigate to a local directory it displays the starting "file://", currently the version I use of Chrome does this.
Thus, I don't see anything wrong with this change.