Hmm. This is interesting.

We specifically don't only elide from the left, because we wanted to elide:

en.m.wikipedia.org to simply en.wikipedia.org. The report in #0 is essentially working as intended.

We could add a more complicated heuristic, but unless it's a "big deal", I'd favor leaving the current simple logic alone.

I'm marking WONTFIX tentatively, but let's continue the discussion -- especially if anyone has strong feelings.

This really does feel weird/wrong to me, but Emily is probably the decider here.

Apparently, conversation continues in  Issue 881410 .

security bug is https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881694

I don't suppose there's a way for the general public to follow the progress of this? The security bug is not public, which seems very odd given the nature of the problem (everyone uses URLs, this is not Chrome-specific).

I'd like to second comment 7's question, and ask further, where we should send feedback on this change? I doubt you want it all in the issue tracker, especially since it appears most if not all conversation on the subject has been merged into that private-marked security issue.

Shameful.

 Bug 881694  shows as 'does not exist' for me, so I assume it's marked private.

Where do we send feedback on this URL change?  I think the Chromium team is seriously overstepping its bounds here in ways that actually make the way the way the web works much LESS transparent.

I'm really getting tired of these edicted changes in blog posts with 0 opportunity to comment that get implemented 3 months later and break a ton of things, often in ways that benefit Google over the multitude of smaller voices that are present on the web.

I've stopped recommending Chrome to friends and family.

I think what it comes down to is aligning how Chrome behaves with web design best practices.  I believe that making "www.example.com" and "example.com" point to materially-different content is a mistake, so Chrome hiding that is a reasonable step -- obviously from the discussion in 881410 this is a matter of some contention.  I think there's room for reasonable people to disagree about telling the user they're on "m.example.com".

I also think that it's opening a pretty big can of worms to suggest that hiding the "m." in "en.m.wikipedia.org" is somehow helpful but hiding the "en." isn't -- after all, I'm looking at the page content, it's in English, why tell me in the URL bar?  Why not make all 2-character ISO language abbreviations part of the "trivial subdomains" list?  After all, if I'm on "de.whatever.com", the fact that it's in German (or the page of the comapny's German subsidiary) is probably readily apparent.  If you start down that road, where does it end?

We've already gotten substantial feedback on this feature. The security bug is restricted while we discuss security implications and response.