4 ms·
He gives two reasons to default to www: - Cookies are passed down to subdomains / unnecessary cookies hurt performance / cookies may be read by third parties
by paulsutter 8y ago
He gives two reasons to default to www:
- Cookies are passed down to subdomains / unnecessary cookies hurt performance / cookies may be read by third parties
- DNS origin can’t be a CNAME (must be an A-type record, that points to a static IP address)
He is using the non-www like everyone else, of course. We always list out the practical reasons that www is better, just before we choose non-www.
- shawn 8y agoWhen your site grows large and you move it to an hosted service, or wants to point it to an Web Application Firewall or a DDoS mitigator, you might want to use a CNAME type record, to point the hostname to another flexible hostname that the vendor manages depending on your traffic and needs. Now, if your website is hosted at the origin (“example.com”), you can’t do that. But there is no issue with the “www” hostname being a CNAME record. So if you want any scaling flexibility, now or in the future, you should go with the www hostname from the beginning. Granted, his blog was knocked offline by HN. But would a CNAME have saved their Wordpress site? FWIW, https://ycombinator.com/ https://ycombinator.com/ redirects to https://www.ycommbiator.com https://www.ycommbiator.com, as does Reddit.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- terandle 8y agoI can appreciate the pragmatic aspect of choosing www however I don't really like the 'oh well guess we'll just use www forever' attitude either. Seems like changing the specs to remove these restrictions is what we should really be talking about?