6 ms·
not while there are still stupid websites that don't work without it.
by there 17y ago
not 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.