We don't have any official guidelines for that yet, and the behavior varies a lot.
Things to consider: - If all domains are operated by the same company, they are likely to all support HTTPS or not in similar ways, which favors combining them. - If one domain breaks, are the others likely to break too? Putting them all in one rule lets users disable them all in one click. - If one domain fails the ruleset checker, the whole ruleset will be disabled until that domain is fixed. But this might be desired behavior. - We discourage having the same target host across multiple rulesets, so if the content-cdn is shared, that favors either combining all into one ruleset, or giving the content-cdn its own ruleset. I'm interested in feedback from other ruleset authors on this: What factors do you weigh when deciding to combine or separate related rulesets? Thanks, Jacob On 04/03/2015 08:20 AM, Numismatika wrote: > Hello list, > i was thinking about creating rules that cover the zam network. > One rule for each subsite they run was the first idea, since some big > companies like google also have multiple rules already in HTTPS-Everywhere. > Then i thought, some of the content-cdn is shared, so one rule for all > the sites would also be possible. > Is that something where one rolls the dice or is it a question of some > other factors, like size , amount of involved and shared sub-domains? > > Regards, > Numismatika > > > _______________________________________________ > HTTPS-Everywhere mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/https-everywhere > _______________________________________________ HTTPS-Everywhere mailing list [email protected] https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/https-everywhere
