5 ms·
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's anal about redirecting to the canonical host name. Now, let the bike-shedding begin: should the canonical host name be www.f
by mwcampbell 13y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's anal about redirecting to the canonical host name. Now, let the bike-shedding begin: should the canonical host name be www.foo.com or foo.com?
- legutierr 13y agowww allows for the use of CNAMEs (which, as I understand it, is why the www convention was established in the first place).
- dedward 13y agoThe convention of using relatively-short service-based host portions of an FQDN pre-dates the WWW. It was common to use mail, gopher, irc, whatever for various servers from a functional point of view. Whether it was an A record or a CNAME record was generally at the adminstrators preference. CNAMEs had their own hiccups and weirdness to deal with, and still do to a lesser degree.
- scottbruin 13y agoIt should be www., generally, unless you're a huge site and then you can do whatever you want (cf. Twitter) The reason I say this is for smaller operators who may not be running multicast'ed servers in 3+ geographical areas, then you'll probably want most of your traffic pointing to a CNAME of a CDN or at least a cloud-hosted load balancer.
- lukifer 13y agoI say "www." needs to die in a fire. It's ugly and pointless, and doesn't stop you from using other subdomains if you want them.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago"www." is a good indicator in other media that a web address is being presented when it might otherwise be not entirely obvious. Not entirely pointless.
- pinterface 13y agoI'm a fan of web.foo.com, personally. Much easier to pronounce. ;)