5 ms·

> www must go, it's a remnant of the past, the sooner the better. Which then is a thing for websites to do, not for browsers to lie about.

keymone 7y ago
> not for browsers to lie about it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) > a thing for websites to do they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. The host name is not redundant information. > if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? Why should I write idiotic rants? > if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) Well, great that you disagree. Now, please do the work of changing the relevant standards instead of making yourself look like an idiot by calling people who read and follow standards "incompetent developers". > they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy. Which is not the topic of this disucssion.
  - username90 7y ago
    >> if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? > Why should I write idiotic rants? You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? That way you can write https://www.google.com:13000 https://www.google.com:13000 for example to try to connect to another port, but now you believe that those addresses doesn't exist. Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? No, I am not, for the simple reason that that is not the case. Browsers hide port 80 only for HTTP and port 443 only for HTTPS, because those are the well-known ports for those protocols, and the specifications of URIs and those protocols define that no port in the URI is equivalent to the well-known port, and what the well-known ports are. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 > For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. No, the browsers simply follow the relevant standards, as you can see from the links above. > Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? No, there is no additional information in displaying the well-known port, as per the standards cited above, so it would be a completely useless waste of space. > Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www. What do you mean by "standards parts"? Also, could you please cite the relevant standard that specifies that http[s]://www.domain/ is equivalent to http[s]://domain/?
      - keymone 7y ago
        > Browsers hide port 80 only for HTTP and port 443 only for HTTPS, because those are the well-known ports for those protocols how is that different from "browsers only hide www part of domain name because this is a well known historical artifact and default behavior of any sane website should be to either redirect one name to another or serve the same content on both" you're being unnecessarily and angrily pedant.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > how is that different from "browsers only hide www part of domain name because this is a well known historical artifact and default behavior of any sane website should be to either redirect one name to another or serve the same content on both" That one of those is part of the relevant standards, the other is not. What your personal opinion is as to what a "sane" anything should do is just completely irrelevant for this discussion. You build reliably interoperable systems by implementing what the standard says, not by implementing what you would prefer the standard to say, because (a) if everyone just implements what they think is sane, that's guaranteed to fail at interoperating because everyone else will consider something else sane and (b) the process for building the consensus as to how to do things is the standards writing process, so if you think a standard is insane, you have to participate in the standards writing process to change the consensus on how to do things sanely, which then will be reflected in a new revision of the standard. Whether something is well known is also completely irrelevant. "Well-known port" is simply a fixed term for "ports that have been standardized as the default port for a protocol", and the only relevant fact here is that the behaviour of not displaying the port number is standardized. > you're being unnecessarily and angrily pedant. No, your kind of reasoning is precisely how a ton of interoperability problems arise, costing humanity probably billions of dollars to work around each year.
  - keymone 7y ago
    > host name is not redundant information in context of browsing web sites in the browser, www is absolutely redundant information. > do the work of changing the relevant standards since you're so much into standards, there is no standard for how browsers ought to display identity of the site provider that is being browsed. i also don't know of a standard that mandates anything specific about "www" subdomain. and i completely stand by the statement that serving different content on "name.com" and "www.name.com" is utter incompetency. > Which is not the topic of this disucssion then why did you bring it up?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > in context of browsing web sites in the browser, www is absolutely redundant information. Please cite the relevant standard that says so. > since you're so much into standards, there is no standard for how browsers ought to display identity of the site provider that is being browsed. Which is just willfully not understanding the problem? There is a standard for which URIs are equivalent to one another, and I linked you to it. Browsers displaying one URI as a different URI that according to the relevant standards is not guaranteed to be equivalent is obviously in conflict with that standard. > and i completely stand by the statement that serving different content on "name.com" and "www.name.com" is utter incompetency. Great, I understand that that is your opinion. But the standardized consensus differs from your opinion, and the standardized consensus has precedence over your opinion. If you think the standardized consensus is insane, then work on changing the standardized consensus rather than promoting breaking interoperability. > then why did you bring it up? I didn't. Different host names are not redundant, that claim is simply your invention because you don't like that they are not redundant.

keymone 7y ago

> not for browsers to lie about it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) > a thing for websites to do they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> it's just like your opinion man. not showing redundant information is good. The host name is not redundant information. > if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? Why should I write idiotic rants? > if your point is that www.name.com can be different site from name.com - i disagree even more, this is a case of incompetent developers at name.com so redirect your rage accordingly :) Well, great that you disagree. Now, please do the work of changing the relevant standards instead of making yourself look like an idiot by calling people who read and follow standards "incompetent developers". > they'll do it eventually, doesn't mean browsers shouldn't be getting rid of redundancy. Which is not the topic of this disucssion.
- username90 7y ago
  >> if you disagree where's your rant about browsers lying about port 80 by not showing it? > Why should I write idiotic rants? You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? That way you can write https://www.google.com:13000 https://www.google.com:13000 for example to try to connect to another port, but now you believe that those addresses doesn't exist. Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > You are not aware that all browsers currently hide port numbers in the URI bar if they are 80 or 443? No, I am not, for the simple reason that that is not the case. Browsers hide port 80 only for HTTP and port 443 only for HTTPS, because those are the well-known ports for those protocols, and the specifications of URIs and those protocols define that no port in the URI is equivalent to the well-known port, and what the well-known ports are. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-2.3 > For example, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ is actually https://www.google.com:443/ https://www.google.com:443/, but the browsers choose to hide this part. No, the browsers simply follow the relevant standards, as you can see from the links above. > Wouldn't it be better if you actually saw which port the browser connects to? No, there is no additional information in displaying the well-known port, as per the standards cited above, so it would be a completely useless waste of space. > Removing these two standard ports from the address bar is therefore exactly the same as removing other standards parts, like https:// https:// or www. What do you mean by "standards parts"? Also, could you please cite the relevant standard that specifies that http[s]://www.domain/ is equivalent to http[s]://domain/?
    - keymone 7y ago
      > Browsers hide port 80 only for HTTP and port 443 only for HTTPS, because those are the well-known ports for those protocols how is that different from "browsers only hide www part of domain name because this is a well known historical artifact and default behavior of any sane website should be to either redirect one name to another or serve the same content on both" you're being unnecessarily and angrily pedant.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > how is that different from "browsers only hide www part of domain name because this is a well known historical artifact and default behavior of any sane website should be to either redirect one name to another or serve the same content on both" That one of those is part of the relevant standards, the other is not. What your personal opinion is as to what a "sane" anything should do is just completely irrelevant for this discussion. You build reliably interoperable systems by implementing what the standard says, not by implementing what you would prefer the standard to say, because (a) if everyone just implements what they think is sane, that's guaranteed to fail at interoperating because everyone else will consider something else sane and (b) the process for building the consensus as to how to do things is the standards writing process, so if you think a standard is insane, you have to participate in the standards writing process to change the consensus on how to do things sanely, which then will be reflected in a new revision of the standard. Whether something is well known is also completely irrelevant. "Well-known port" is simply a fixed term for "ports that have been standardized as the default port for a protocol", and the only relevant fact here is that the behaviour of not displaying the port number is standardized. > you're being unnecessarily and angrily pedant. No, your kind of reasoning is precisely how a ton of interoperability problems arise, costing humanity probably billions of dollars to work around each year.
- keymone 7y ago
  > host name is not redundant information in context of browsing web sites in the browser, www is absolutely redundant information. > do the work of changing the relevant standards since you're so much into standards, there is no standard for how browsers ought to display identity of the site provider that is being browsed. i also don't know of a standard that mandates anything specific about "www" subdomain. and i completely stand by the statement that serving different content on "name.com" and "www.name.com" is utter incompetency. > Which is not the topic of this disucssion then why did you bring it up?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > in context of browsing web sites in the browser, www is absolutely redundant information. Please cite the relevant standard that says so. > since you're so much into standards, there is no standard for how browsers ought to display identity of the site provider that is being browsed. Which is just willfully not understanding the problem? There is a standard for which URIs are equivalent to one another, and I linked you to it. Browsers displaying one URI as a different URI that according to the relevant standards is not guaranteed to be equivalent is obviously in conflict with that standard. > and i completely stand by the statement that serving different content on "name.com" and "www.name.com" is utter incompetency. Great, I understand that that is your opinion. But the standardized consensus differs from your opinion, and the standardized consensus has precedence over your opinion. If you think the standardized consensus is insane, then work on changing the standardized consensus rather than promoting breaking interoperability. > then why did you bring it up? I didn't. Different host names are not redundant, that claim is simply your invention because you don't like that they are not redundant.