3 ms·
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 underst
by 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 agowww. 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...)