4 ms·

because it's never significant or useful

by andromeduck 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago
> because it's never significant or useful But www.example.com isn't necessarily the same website as example.com.
- itsArtur 6y ago
  What's the practical implication of this fact?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    That the difference between them should not be hidden.
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    The fact that www.example.com and example.com resolves to the same place is a happy accident due to someone explicitly configuring it so. As a practical example, the website for my current employer had not configured their "bare" domain. When applying for a job I decided to check out their website, and copied only the "bare" domain and pasted it in my browser. Didn't work, just timed out. I tried a few times and through "huh, website down for a few days, that sure doesn't look good". Then on a whim I figured I might try the "full" domain, and sure enough that loaded up straight away. One of the first things I got done when I was hired was to ensure the "bare" domain worked.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Yeah but would you discover that by looking at the url? In the vast majority of cases it'll be mentally filtered out by the user anyway for the same reason why nobody cares about the http and :// part, they just want to know if it's secured or not.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Yeah but would you discover that by looking at the url? If I want to be on www.example.com and I'm actually on example.com, then yes I can discover that by looking at the URL.
    - andromeduck 6y ago
      You and maybe the 3 other people that might also notice if a site is serving different pages for http vs https. If it's accessible in the browser its already part of the world wide web so what information is it even conveying?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > so what information is it even conveying? I feel like I'm going in circles. They're two different web pages. Possibly with entirely different information. Possibly run by entirely different people. Possibly with entirely different trust levels and threats. It conveys which of the two web pages I'm looking at. How is that not useful information?
        andromeduck 6y ago
        All WWW was supposed to mean was HTTP accessible. Now that every domain why should a user using a http* browser have to specify that they intend to access it via http* when they have no other choice? Either the server responds or it doesn't. www.foo.com and foo.com both return http traffic then they are both part of the world wide web. The specific of how you've decided to run your site or serve your pages is irrelevant. You may serve a page depending on if the http request came over port 80 or some other port or via http or https or at this time or that time or other.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        I don't think you get it. www.example.com and example.com might be two different websites. If you want the content at www.example.com and you go to example.com, then may not get the content that you wanted. One might be a shop selling shoes and the other might be a shop selling hats. If you want a hat and you go to the one selling shoes then you're going to be disappointed. 'www.' doesn't 'mean was HTTP accessible'. You can make any system HTTP accessible, or not if you want to. It doesn't matter how you or I set up our websites, or whether you or I think it's a good idea to have different websites at these addresses, it matters how other people set up their websites and if they choose to do this or not. Some do! Therefore the user needs the information.
megous 6y ago
The company I worked for had www.* as a web presentation for the SaaS app and SaaS app running on *. So yeah, hiding www is annoying and confusing in this situation, because Google just assumed something about the web/domains and forced their assumptions on everyone.
abofh 6y ago
... it's the most significant part of the lookup.

because it's never significant or useful

chrisseaton 6y ago

> because it's never significant or useful But www.example.com isn't necessarily the same website as example.com.

itsArtur 6y ago
What's the practical implication of this fact?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  That the difference between them should not be hidden.
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  The fact that www.example.com and example.com resolves to the same place is a happy accident due to someone explicitly configuring it so. As a practical example, the website for my current employer had not configured their "bare" domain. When applying for a job I decided to check out their website, and copied only the "bare" domain and pasted it in my browser. Didn't work, just timed out. I tried a few times and through "huh, website down for a few days, that sure doesn't look good". Then on a whim I figured I might try the "full" domain, and sure enough that loaded up straight away. One of the first things I got done when I was hired was to ensure the "bare" domain worked.
andromeduck 6y ago
Yeah but would you discover that by looking at the url? In the vast majority of cases it'll be mentally filtered out by the user anyway for the same reason why nobody cares about the http and :// part, they just want to know if it's secured or not.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Yeah but would you discover that by looking at the url? If I want to be on www.example.com and I'm actually on example.com, then yes I can discover that by looking at the URL.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    You and maybe the 3 other people that might also notice if a site is serving different pages for http vs https. If it's accessible in the browser its already part of the world wide web so what information is it even conveying?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > so what information is it even conveying? I feel like I'm going in circles. They're two different web pages. Possibly with entirely different information. Possibly run by entirely different people. Possibly with entirely different trust levels and threats. It conveys which of the two web pages I'm looking at. How is that not useful information?
      - andromeduck 6y ago
        All WWW was supposed to mean was HTTP accessible. Now that every domain why should a user using a http* browser have to specify that they intend to access it via http* when they have no other choice? Either the server responds or it doesn't. www.foo.com and foo.com both return http traffic then they are both part of the world wide web. The specific of how you've decided to run your site or serve your pages is irrelevant. You may serve a page depending on if the http request came over port 80 or some other port or via http or https or at this time or that time or other.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        I don't think you get it. www.example.com and example.com might be two different websites. If you want the content at www.example.com and you go to example.com, then may not get the content that you wanted. One might be a shop selling shoes and the other might be a shop selling hats. If you want a hat and you go to the one selling shoes then you're going to be disappointed. 'www.' doesn't 'mean was HTTP accessible'. You can make any system HTTP accessible, or not if you want to. It doesn't matter how you or I set up our websites, or whether you or I think it's a good idea to have different websites at these addresses, it matters how other people set up their websites and if they choose to do this or not. Some do! Therefore the user needs the information.

megous 6y ago

The company I worked for had www.* as a web presentation for the SaaS app and SaaS app running on *. So yeah, hiding www is annoying and confusing in this situation, because Google just assumed something about the web/domains and forced their assumptions on everyone.

abofh 6y ago

... it's the most significant part of the lookup.