5 ms·

Well, if we're talking about "millions (or more) of page views per day", as the article is, the cost of buying an extra domain for static content is insignifica

Well, if we're talking about "millions (or more) of page views per day", as the article is, the cost of buying an extra domain for static content is insignificant. You could also serve your static content from your CDN provider's domain.

tszming 12y ago
Yes you are right, there are always workarounds! But why not make your life easier by just accepting...the "www" as the default? It is a convention well understood by most people in the Interweb. Honestly, I cannot see any technical reason to support removing "www" except someone's personal preferences. I would argue, IMO, when you need to expand you subdomains in the future, mixing naked domain and subdomains is even more uglier, and cause the inconsistencies, e.g. example.com api.example.com admin.example.com When we are talking about the default, it should be safe to use, and "www" is the safe choice here for people who NEVER heard about the CNAME and the cookie issues. Advertising something (like http://no-www.org http://no-www.org) for the matter of taste without mentioning the potential drawbacks (even there are workarounds), is irresponsible IMO.
- mynameisvlad 12y ago
  > example.com api.example.com admin.example.com That seems perfectly normal to me. The first one is the main service, the second is the API for that service, the third the admin site for that service.
- vacri 12y ago
  www. used to be convention, but it doesn't seem to be anymore. Listening to the way people talk casually, they'll say "go to [site].com, not [prefix].[site].com". www. seemed to be the standard back when people were confused about how slashes worked or what bit goes where. Now it's just [site], with a .com on the end to indicate it's a website (sometimes even if it's not a .com...)
nilved 12y ago
There's also an extra DNS request on each page
- WatchDog 12y ago
  How is it an extra DNS request? Whether you use www or not wont it will still be two DNS requests? www.mysite.com static.mysite.com compared to mysite.com mysitestatic.com

tszming 12y ago

Yes you are right, there are always workarounds! But why not make your life easier by just accepting...the "www" as the default? It is a convention well understood by most people in the Interweb. Honestly, I cannot see any technical reason to support removing "www" except someone's personal preferences. I would argue, IMO, when you need to expand you subdomains in the future, mixing naked domain and subdomains is even more uglier, and cause the inconsistencies, e.g. example.com api.example.com admin.example.com When we are talking about the default, it should be safe to use, and "www" is the safe choice here for people who NEVER heard about the CNAME and the cookie issues. Advertising something (like http://no-www.org http://no-www.org) for the matter of taste without mentioning the potential drawbacks (even there are workarounds), is irresponsible IMO.

mynameisvlad 12y ago
> example.com api.example.com admin.example.com That seems perfectly normal to me. The first one is the main service, the second is the API for that service, the third the admin site for that service.
vacri 12y ago
www. used to be convention, but it doesn't seem to be anymore. Listening to the way people talk casually, they'll say "go to [site].com, not [prefix].[site].com". www. seemed to be the standard back when people were confused about how slashes worked or what bit goes where. Now it's just [site], with a .com on the end to indicate it's a website (sometimes even if it's not a .com...)

nilved 12y ago

There's also an extra DNS request on each page

WatchDog 12y ago
How is it an extra DNS request? Whether you use www or not wont it will still be two DNS requests? www.mysite.com static.mysite.com compared to mysite.com mysitestatic.com