6 ms·
might as well axe out the 'www' while you're at it.
by proee 17y ago
might as well axe out the 'www' while you're at it.
- there 17y agonot while there are still stupid websites that don't work without it.
- frou_dh 17y agoA game site I used to frequent. I always thought that this would scupper new word-of-mouth visitors. http://ntsc-uk.com/ http://ntsc-uk.com/ http://www.ntsc-uk.com/ http://www.ntsc-uk.com/
- pkulak 17y agohaha, nice
- derefr 17y agoSo let it be the browser's responsibility to try both with and without it. They'll either be the same, or one will be nonexistent or a not-found page; it's not like people put one site at www.x and another at x.
- mbrubeck 17y agoYou would hope so, but unfortunately you'd be wrong - a tiny fraction of the time, but still...
- stanleydrew 17y agoWell that would seriously increase http requests and dns lookups which slows down everything.
- philwelch 17y agoFor example: http://pullmantransit.com/ http://pullmantransit.com/ http://www.pullmantransit.com/ http://www.pullmantransit.com/
- tlrobinson 17y agoProbably Apache defaulting to the first virtual host.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- tetha 17y agoI am unsure if this is intrinsically stupid, but in our university, we have subdomains of the form www.faculty.university.de, mail.faculty.university.de, ssh-gate.faculty.university.de, mayflower.servers.faculty.university.de and so on. At least the ssh-gate is different from the www-server, and it appears the www-server is equal to the mail-server. Stripping the www here would be a world of hurt. Long story short: the www is not necessarily stupid, especially if you use it to designate a web server from different servers.
- there 17y agothere is absolutely nothing preventing them from still using subdomains while making the domain itself resolve to something useful.
- frou_dh 17y agoNo way. There's nothing special about www. Subdomains could well resolve to different IP addresses.
- jluxenberg 17y agoSarcasm much?
- c00ki3s 17y agoIs this really true? Because I have wondered quite a few times. Is www.foo.bar just a subdomain like irc.foo.bar or mail.foo.bar? Is the default www.somesite.com basically just convention?
- yetanotherlogin 17y agoYes.
- postfuturist 17y agoLet's get rid of tld's, too!
- axod 17y agoAOL Keywords FTW!
- lurkinggrue 17y agoI propose we go to Compuserve navigation. Example: If you want google.com you type "go google" into the address bar and "Go CB" when you want a chat protocol.
- shaddi 17y agoFunny, but it seems using Chrome's address bar as a search box then clicking the first link is roughly equivalent. You remember the "login facebook" fiasco right? http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_yo...
- joshu 17y agoISTR you can't have CNAME on a domain name, which causes problems potentially with mail delivery. Everyone does it anyway...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- dedward 17y agoYou can't have a CNAME record for something that also has another type of record.... I think that includes SOA records or NS records. That may be where the confusion comes from. There is also confusion regarding how they are resolved. If an A record is requested, but a CNAME is encountered, the resolver will then look up A record for the resource indicated by the CNAME. If the CNAME is specifically requested, it will return itself as expected. Couple this with different implementations of mail servers (and other stuff) not strictly following RFCs...... that led to a general consensus among many greying sysadmins now to try to avoid using CNAME records wherever possible, as they were more trouble than they were worth.
- joshu 17y agoThanks for the explanation!
- techiferous 17y agohttp://no-www.org/ http://no-www.org/