> 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.
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.