[herpderperator]

https://govt.nz isn't a thing, but https://www.govt.nz is.

[jagged-chisel]

The former should forward to the latter.

[ksaj]

Agreed. If the content isn't really designed for the wide world, the www hostname seems to be self-defeating, or at least describing the wrong thing.

[Cub3]

This is amazingly pedantic, I love it.

[vasco]

So how do you agree? You're saying the opposite they said.

[jagged-chisel]

Whether the former forwards to the latter, or the latter to the former is not the important part.

It is important to make it as easy as possible to get to the main content of the site.

[ceejayoz]

NASA.gov for many years lacked a no-www version. IIRC it had something to do with the no-www being important internally at the time.

[b112]

These days, browsers absurdly try things like adding www. if you don't have it, and there's no open port. Same for http -> https.

This is doubly an issue, as browsers think hiding the http and www is super cool.

So in modern times, you'd never know if the non www was borked or not. It'd just seem slower, especially with a packet drop.

Ideally, you'd want to know there's an issue, not mask it. For example, by updating your bookmark, instead of saying "this site is slow every time".

I wonder of we'll just stop selling forks, because expecting users to learn a tool is verboden. In truth, it is the ridiculous change to tools for no reason which is the issue. Redesigning the UI almost yearly, moving menu items, changing menu item names, and other absurdities. Apparently this is all sensible, whilst expecting the user to know https vs http, and www is absolutely bonkers, and we must help and protect them from this horrible weight of knowledge.

[dd8601fn]

It’s been a very long time, but as I recall MS recommendations for AD domains and dns collisions changed multiple times. Used to be real problems if you had overlap.