4 ms·

I realize it is an important distinction, I'm glad you do as well. Just as ftp.mysite.com is not mysite.com and mysite.com in not mysite.io and http://mysite.c

I realize it is an important distinction, I'm glad you do as well. Just as ftp.mysite.com is not mysite.com and mysite.com in not mysite.io and http://mysite.com http://mysite.com is not https://mysite.com https://mysite.com. You get the point. They are all different and important in my opinion. Any argument that hiding the "www." part makes it easier for the user is equally applicable (and wrong) to ".com"

wpietri 8y ago
You can keep repeating your point, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to actually address my demonstration that the two are in fact not equal in practice.
- uberman 8y ago
  From the bug report that started this thread: http://www.ntppool.org http://www.ntppool.org is not http://pool.ntp.org http://pool.ntp.org and https://citibank.com.sg https://citibank.com.sg is not https://www.citibank.com.sg https://www.citibank.com.sg and https://m.tumblr.com/ https://m.tumblr.com/ is not https://www.tumblr.com/ https://www.tumblr.com/ Yet Google makes them all appear to be the same. There are lots of other odd filtering behaviors in the issue if you want to check out the comments For example, should: www.www.www.subdomain.www.www.www.domain.com show as subdomain.domain.com How is that right? How does making those two destinations appear to be the same thing make the user "safer" under any stretch of the imagination?
  - wpietri 8y ago
    I'm not arguing for Chrome's implementation. I'm saying we should do the more useful but harder thing of just not using "www" as a thing in browser URLs. They have correctly identified it as redundant, but instead tried to fix it by being too clever. As I mention elsewhere, the first two are bad examples. (In fact. ntppool.org and www.ntppool.org are the same thing.) The third is a hack from the era where responsive design, browser sniffing, and polyfills didn't exist. It should probably die too, but doesn't have to here. The m.tumblr.com name is distinct from tumblr.com and is of the form I think better. Note that they didn't use www.m.tumblr.com.

wpietri 8y ago

You can keep repeating your point, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to actually address my demonstration that the two are in fact not equal in practice.

uberman 8y ago
From the bug report that started this thread: http://www.ntppool.org http://www.ntppool.org is not http://pool.ntp.org http://pool.ntp.org and https://citibank.com.sg https://citibank.com.sg is not https://www.citibank.com.sg https://www.citibank.com.sg and https://m.tumblr.com/ https://m.tumblr.com/ is not https://www.tumblr.com/ https://www.tumblr.com/ Yet Google makes them all appear to be the same. There are lots of other odd filtering behaviors in the issue if you want to check out the comments For example, should: www.www.www.subdomain.www.www.www.domain.com show as subdomain.domain.com How is that right? How does making those two destinations appear to be the same thing make the user "safer" under any stretch of the imagination?
- wpietri 8y ago
  I'm not arguing for Chrome's implementation. I'm saying we should do the more useful but harder thing of just not using "www" as a thing in browser URLs. They have correctly identified it as redundant, but instead tried to fix it by being too clever. As I mention elsewhere, the first two are bad examples. (In fact. ntppool.org and www.ntppool.org are the same thing.) The third is a hack from the era where responsive design, browser sniffing, and polyfills didn't exist. It should probably die too, but doesn't have to here. The m.tumblr.com name is distinct from tumblr.com and is of the form I think better. Note that they didn't use www.m.tumblr.com.