2 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.