3 ms·
Their argument seems only to be that with the https?:// protocol prefix in the URI, the 'www' is redundant. No other arguments than 'time consuming' is present
by Svip 12y ago
Their argument seems only to be that with the https?:// protocol prefix in the URI, the 'www' is redundant. No other arguments than 'time consuming' is presented.
Even their FAQ doesn't answer why they dislike 'www' other than being seemingly redundant. I personally prefer without www on my websites, and my cache server is set up to ignore cookies on static content.
- Joyfield 12y agoYes but your clients probably are still sending them to you.