23 ms·
I'm surprised at the www supporters. Do not do this. Down the road, you will want to use subdomains (app.example.com, dashboard.example.com) and choosing www ou
by purephase 13y ago
I'm surprised at the www supporters. Do not do this. Down the road, you will want to use subdomains (app.example.com, dashboard.example.com) and choosing www out of the gate will make it more complicated then it's worth. If HTTPS is required, then a certificate with www will always get in the way, get a non-www and add a subject alternative name, or get a wildcard.
It is much, much easier to redirect all non-www traffic to www if a subdomain is not specified then otherwise and a wildcard or SAN-enabled certificate will make it much more flexible in the future.
- tedivm 13y agoNo matter what you have to support both www and the straight domain, because different users will try different methods to get to your site and you don't want to lose traffic. Because you have to set up both no matter what, I don't see any reason why supporting WWW as the canonical domain for webpages is going to add any complications, and as I explained above it solves a ton. In addition, the SSL stuff is irrelevant. You can use "www" under a wildcard cert just as easily as you can "app" or "dashboard", and if you're doing it right you're going to need to setup SSL on both anyways. Why does choosing WWW make it more complicated, and how will a "www" certificate get in the way?
- iamjustin 13y agoWhat do you lose by setting those up as example.com/app and example.com/dashboard instead?