4 ms·

OK, but that doesn't address any of the issues presented in the Yes WWW article posted here. I don't even see an argument against WWW other than convenience or

• _ak 12y ago
  If course it doesn't address any of the issues, because the no-www page was created in 2003, while the yes-www page was created in 2005.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    Websites can be updated. Some people even update their blog posts, despite their intrinsically temporary nature.
• marcosdumay 12y ago
  The issues in that article are basically that "such provider can't support the usual DNS configuration", and that "you'll either send cookies[1] to get static data, or will have to spend $20 more every year", and that both of those will become a problem when your site gets huge. Well, if you get a huge site, and are still using those providers, or can't spare an extra $20 yearly, well, you have some much larger problem than the lack of "www" prefix. Also, having an ugly URL just because one day you may become big and need it is a fool's errand. Use the pretty one, and when that day comes, change it. It's a one line change in the server settings, and there is no penalty on links, search ranking, or anything else. [1] Ignore that in most cases those cookies don't consume any extra bandwidth. Network communication is normally padded to multiples of some relatively big size, and requests for static data is quite small. If you use very large cookies, then yes, maybe you should think about spending those $20, or adding the "www" once your site grows.