5 ms·
One thing from that era that the web hasn't fully jettisoned is the completely unnecessary and redundant use of the www domain name prefix for web servers. I e
by pmoriarty 4y ago
One thing from that era that the web hasn't fully jettisoned is the completely unnecessary and redundant use of the www domain name prefix for web servers.
I expect it'll still be there in the year 2525.
- rollcat 4y agoIt's not completely redundant. You can't make a naked CNAME record (technically you can, but things will break in mysterious ways), and there's no standardised means of dynamically updating an A/AAAA record e.g. to match a virtualised load balancer (e.g. AWS ELB). Vendors have non-standard extensions to work around this, e.g. Route53 has the ALIAS virtual type (which presents itself as an A/AAAA to the clients); I wrote some cron+dig hacks in the past when that wasn't available (e.g. with ChinaCache).
- bawolff 4y agoAt the time it probably was more neccesary. Http wasn't the only game in town. But don't underestimate the value of branding either.
- 0des 4y agoalso reminds me of folks who went with web.* instead of www.* a while back when we thought thats how things would go. still cant remember the full reason behind it.
- saila 4y agoI prefer no-www for aesthetic reasons, but there do seem to be some good reasons for some sites to use www: https://www.yes-www.org/why-use-www/ https://www.yes-www.org/why-use-www/