3 ms·
The OP could have avoided a lot of confusion if he began his article like this: > www. is not deprecated for webmasters (but users don't need to type it) > Th
by cantrevealname 11y ago
The OP could have avoided a lot of confusion if he began his article like this:
> www. is not deprecated for webmasters (but users don't need to type it)
> This page is intended for webmasters who are looking for information about whether or not to use www in their canonical web site URLs; however, the website can still be advertised without the www and the user never needs to type it.
Even in this HackerNews discussion with technically knowledgeable people I see a lot of discussion stemming form this misunderstanding of what the OP is trying to say. (Example: "I should take the toll by typing www every time? life is too short.")
- erikb 11y agoYeah, this would have helped a lot to avoid discussion. I suppose the author of the website expects mostly webmasters to come and read what he writes. But here are a lot of other people as well. So probably it's not the author who should adopt his text (why should he even know we exist) but the title of the link in HN itself should make it clear.
- clinta 11y agoWell, I agree that users shouldn't need to type it, but it should still be advertised, especially in print. www makes it immediately obvious that you're looking at a url, which is especially important with gtlds. A line at the bottom that says dog.spa is meaningless. www.dog.spa fixes that with only 4 characters. You could print http://dog.spa http://dog.spa, but now you've added 7 characters and it looks even more technical, which is stupid if the goal of removing www is to simplify things.