3 ms·

Interesting read, but I can't say I agree. > ... Back then, virtually everyone dutifully typed http://www.pepsi.com/ http://www.pepsi.com/ into Mosaic or Netsc

Interesting read, but I can't say I agree. > ... Back then, virtually everyone dutifully typed http://www.pepsi.com/ http://www.pepsi.com/ into Mosaic or Netscape to see just what it was that Pepsi had put online. These days, many people will just type in www.pepsi.com or even pepsi.com or, believe it or not, just pepsi. URI's will never go away. Search is just getting better. > The source of this confusion is the simple fact that users today don’t understand two things. First, they don’t understand why the www. is (or isn’t) there, and second, they don’t understand that the Web is not the whole of the Internet. I don't understand why it's there. It's a bit redundant given all the arguments of the no-www folks. (edited for formatting)

joeyespo 14y ago
> I don't understand why it's there. It's a bit redundant given all the arguments of the no-www folks. I agree. It's redundant and, like 'http:// http://, can and should be inferred. I also think it looks much better without it. The reason it won't go away is technical. See Heroku's article on it: https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/avoiding-naked-domains-dns-arecords https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/avoiding-naked-domains... I do hope that the technical reasons for not using naked domains can be worked around some day. Whether by evolution of the technology or by the browser inferring it.