5 ms·

Are you ok, man? Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen the only thing approaching a concrete example of a problem is the claim that this UI change

Are you ok, man? Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen the only thing approaching a concrete example of a problem is the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately. And your analogy betrays fundamentally confused thinking. Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting the city or state. The only address this would "break" is a building with different tenants operating out of "123 ABC St, 1st floor" and "123 ABC St", which is a misconfigured building if you could even find an example of that.

wwweston 8y ago
> the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to here, at least half a dozen such claims with examples are in the comments on the issue/ticket that started this thread, the same one that you even pulled a quote from. They've also been invoked throughout the entire HN discussion. I'm not sure if you missed them, or if you're implying that examples such as singapore banks or m.tumblr.com are simply made up. > Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting the city or state. A building/floor analogy has its own issues, but it deals in enough of the same concepts as city/state/zip that it's serviceable if you prefer it as an avenue. "1st floor" would indeed be extraneous (though correct) on single floor buildings, so sure, many people might choose to omit it from an address scheme on buildings with single floors. Plausible and not a problem in that case. And of course, people can add it for multi-story buildings where it's not extraneous. Finally, they can even add it on single story buildings if for some reason they're in the habit of using the convention, or if they don't know whether a building has multiple floors but know they want the first, and it's still technically correct and locatable in either case. And that strikes me as a reasonably apt analogy for the state of things before the change under discussion. Not a bad state of affairs really, unless someone wants to make a case that adding "1st floor" when uncertain represents a burden. Now suppose one or more of the postal/shipping services mandate that "1st floor" is a trivial expression, and will therefore be hidden on all envelopes. Does that seem like a good idea? When an address is displayed for buildings that actually have more than one floor, who will know whether the 1st floor is implied? How will they know the floor wasn't accidentally omitted instead? Does the existence of these questions -- vs the question of whether to add 1st floor or not in the previous state of things -- and and any answers there may be really constitute an experience improvement for readers/writers of addresses? > Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen You know, that might be the sort of thing a keen intellect that's cutting through mumbo-jumbo would say, or it might be the sort of thing that someone who's not confident that their engagement with / responses to the arguments in play speak for themselves. Seems like a bit of a gamble about how it'd come off.
- abalone 8y ago
  That a misconfigured Singaporian banking site is the worst example in the world anyone can come up with is perfect evidence that the apoplectic reactions are unwarranted, like so many over the history of changes like this in our industry. And my comments are restricted to the "www" prefix. > How will they know the floor wasn't accidentally omitted instead? This is nonsensical. This www change does not hide subdomains that meaningfully differentiate among "floors". It only concerns the entirely redundant "www" ("'1st floor' for a one story building"). Accidental omission of "www" a total non-issue... in the real world, where we live.
  - wwweston 8y ago
    > That a misconfigured Singaporian banking site is the worst example in the world anyone can come up with is perfect evidence that the apoplectic reactions are unwarranted The "worst" example? I don't think I turned in a ranking. You asked for concrete examples of a problem. It is one. It's part of an unknown but decidedly non-zero number of examples where the www subdomain meaningfully differentiates hosts in the real world, where we live. If there's a specific reason this example or others aren't worth considering, that's a bit of goalpost motion, but a more clearly articulated case can be worth it. > my comments are restricted to the "www" prefix. I'm glad your comments are. The change under discussion does not appear to be. Per comment #16 under the ticket: "the domain m.tumblr.com is shown as tumblr.com." Apparently the policy of identifying some subdomains as "trivial" is not limited to www. Sortof raises the question -- once a player like Google decides it can designate a subdomain as trivial over its common (but not universal!) redunancy, what keeps them from stopping with www? > It only concerns the entirely redundant "www" Commonly redundant is critically distinct from universally redundant. And allowing domain holders the possibility of treating them as redundant is a distinct situation from unilaterally imposing it.

wwweston 8y ago

> the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to here, at least half a dozen such claims with examples are in the comments on the issue/ticket that started this thread, the same one that you even pulled a quote from. They've also been invoked throughout the entire HN discussion. I'm not sure if you missed them, or if you're implying that examples such as singapore banks or m.tumblr.com are simply made up. > Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting the city or state. A building/floor analogy has its own issues, but it deals in enough of the same concepts as city/state/zip that it's serviceable if you prefer it as an avenue. "1st floor" would indeed be extraneous (though correct) on single floor buildings, so sure, many people might choose to omit it from an address scheme on buildings with single floors. Plausible and not a problem in that case. And of course, people can add it for multi-story buildings where it's not extraneous. Finally, they can even add it on single story buildings if for some reason they're in the habit of using the convention, or if they don't know whether a building has multiple floors but know they want the first, and it's still technically correct and locatable in either case. And that strikes me as a reasonably apt analogy for the state of things before the change under discussion. Not a bad state of affairs really, unless someone wants to make a case that adding "1st floor" when uncertain represents a burden. Now suppose one or more of the postal/shipping services mandate that "1st floor" is a trivial expression, and will therefore be hidden on all envelopes. Does that seem like a good idea? When an address is displayed for buildings that actually have more than one floor, who will know whether the 1st floor is implied? How will they know the floor wasn't accidentally omitted instead? Does the existence of these questions -- vs the question of whether to add 1st floor or not in the previous state of things -- and and any answers there may be really constitute an experience improvement for readers/writers of addresses? > Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen You know, that might be the sort of thing a keen intellect that's cutting through mumbo-jumbo would say, or it might be the sort of thing that someone who's not confident that their engagement with / responses to the arguments in play speak for themselves. Seems like a bit of a gamble about how it'd come off.

abalone 8y ago
That a misconfigured Singaporian banking site is the worst example in the world anyone can come up with is perfect evidence that the apoplectic reactions are unwarranted, like so many over the history of changes like this in our industry. And my comments are restricted to the "www" prefix. > How will they know the floor wasn't accidentally omitted instead? This is nonsensical. This www change does not hide subdomains that meaningfully differentiate among "floors". It only concerns the entirely redundant "www" ("'1st floor' for a one story building"). Accidental omission of "www" a total non-issue... in the real world, where we live.
- wwweston 8y ago
  > That a misconfigured Singaporian banking site is the worst example in the world anyone can come up with is perfect evidence that the apoplectic reactions are unwarranted The "worst" example? I don't think I turned in a ranking. You asked for concrete examples of a problem. It is one. It's part of an unknown but decidedly non-zero number of examples where the www subdomain meaningfully differentiates hosts in the real world, where we live. If there's a specific reason this example or others aren't worth considering, that's a bit of goalpost motion, but a more clearly articulated case can be worth it. > my comments are restricted to the "www" prefix. I'm glad your comments are. The change under discussion does not appear to be. Per comment #16 under the ticket: "the domain m.tumblr.com is shown as tumblr.com." Apparently the policy of identifying some subdomains as "trivial" is not limited to www. Sortof raises the question -- once a player like Google decides it can designate a subdomain as trivial over its common (but not universal!) redunancy, what keeps them from stopping with www? > It only concerns the entirely redundant "www" Commonly redundant is critically distinct from universally redundant. And allowing domain holders the possibility of treating them as redundant is a distinct situation from unilaterally imposing it.