...

View Full Version : no more www



Excavator
11-22-2007, 09:04 PM
I think this is a great idea! The www in front of urls should be deprecated.

http://no-www.org/images/blog-button.gif ('http://no-www.org')

felgall
11-22-2007, 09:40 PM
Why? It is not doing any harm and doing away with it will mean that all the people who have got used to typing it will not be able to find your site.

By all means use the version of your address without it for all your links but allow anyone typing it in to find your site as well. In any case www was just implemented as a sub-domain instead of the machine name that it was originally meant to represent and so doing away with www would also do away with all sub-domains.

Apostropartheid
11-22-2007, 10:22 PM
I agree, www is a very useful way of signifying a web address in printed media. Anyway, who really has the authority to do this?

Ironically enough, they allow access @ http://www.no-www.org/. Now that's just funny.

_Aerospace_Eng_
11-24-2007, 05:14 PM
Did anyone actually read the site? They aren't trying to abolish it. They are merely saying that sites should be setup to allow access to www.domain.com but then redirected to domain.com instead.

CFMaBiSmAd
11-24-2007, 05:33 PM
Accomplishing the "redirection" is more properly handled (and does not require an Apache web server for a .htaccess file) by simply setting up the DNS zone "A" (host) records properly so that domain.com resolves to the IP address of the domain and either the www host name or the www.domain.com resolves to the IP address of the domain.

VIPStephan
11-24-2007, 07:03 PM
I agree, www is a very useful way of signifying a web address in printed media.

And who says that? I put this link in my signature (due to which this topic probably came up here) because I think it’s pure stupidity that the average user believes they need to type “www.” in front of a domain while they should actually type “http://” because this is actually the important part. Luckily every major browser assumes this internet protocol by default because if they wouldn’t all these people would bring their computer back to WalMart and complain because the internet isn’t working.

And the other stupidity is that website owners often even redirect the actual domain (without subdomain prefix) to the one with the “www” prefix. And that is what the no-www initiative is trying to abolish.

I don’t think that specifically “www.” is any more useful to denote a web address in any media than anything else (including just leaving it out – I think everybody will understand if I said: “please visit yahoo.com”). It could be a useful sub domain, however, its use as such would now that everybody is “used” to it just add confusion to the people’s indoctrinated minds.

Excavator
11-24-2007, 07:11 PM
doing away with it will mean that all the people who have got used to typing it will not be able to find your site
I don't think anyone would knowingly to do that to themselves and that's not what this is about.

www is a very useful way of signifying a web address in printed media
Maybe it used to be ... I think the internet has been around long enough now that anyone who sees a domain.com/net/biz/whatever is going to know it's a web address.


Typing domain.com, getting a 404 error, typing www.domain.com and getting a website... that's just irritating.

Apostropartheid
11-24-2007, 07:31 PM
And who says that? I put this link in my signature (due to which this topic probably came up here) because I think it’s pure stupidity that the average user believes they need to type “www.” in front of a domain while they should actually type “http://” because this is actually the important part. Luckily every major browser assumes this internet protocol by default because if they wouldn’t all these people would bring their computer back to WalMart and complain because the internet isn’t working.

And the other stupidity is that website owners often even redirect the actual domain (without subdomain prefix) to the one with the “www” prefix. And that is what the no-www initiative is trying to abolish.

I don’t think that specifically “www.” is any more useful to denote a web address in any media than anything else (including just leaving it out – I think everybody will understand if I said: “please visit yahoo.com”). It could be a useful sub domain, however, its use as such would now that everybody is “used” to it just add confusion to the people’s indoctrinated minds.

Well, I did.

The fact that people have gotten used to it is exactly the reason why it shouldn't go. Why change something familiar? In any case, http:// is more cumbersome, and it's harder to remember (seriously, who would really bother saying & remembering haitch-tee-tee-pee-colon-forward slash-forward slash in general conversation?)

Any even they recognize that there's a reason to redirect to www.mydomain.com (http://www.mydomain.com) -- for branding purposes. (Who does this and why, don't ask me, but some site names really do look better with the www prefix.) They do even say that this is alright, but not the prefered method.

And, because I'm quite cynical, I'm gonna say that "campaigning" for this is rather pointless. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how people access your site, as long as they do.

(But yeah, typing in domain.com and getting a 404--that's annoying. Really. Annoying.)

VIPStephan
11-24-2007, 07:53 PM
Yeah, spelling http:// is probably as cumbersome as spelling “double u, double u, double u” – in the English and French language at least (in German it goes real quick). But that’s why I said anybody would understand for example “yahoo.com” without any prefix, even if they are used to seeing it. It’s just so useless and not even contributing any beauty to the world (and I’d say domains looking prettier with prefix is just a matter of being familiar with as well; if we would only know it without we would like it just as well). So, why don’t we add aaa. or xxx. in front of our domains? What makes www. better or more useful?

Apostropartheid
11-24-2007, 08:53 PM
Spelling it on a keyboard isn't that different. You don't really have to move...

It's more useful (in this case, I'm not saying in general) because it has some bearing to the World Wide Web?

& the same thing applies to any beauty, really. The majority used to find more weight pretty in ancient Rome, and now it's rather more in favour of stick insects. Beauty's all to do with the times, really, isn't it?

felgall
11-25-2007, 12:31 AM
1. I seem to remember somewhere that said that www is pronounced "tridub".

2. Why does everyone keep linking to domain.com - surely that web site has enough inbound links already without your continually promoting it. If you want to write example addresses then use the one that is reserved specifically for that purpose - example.com

3. Web browsers assume the http:// because that's the protocol they are primarily set up to work with. When you want to use a different protocol you need to specify it (eg. ftp:// or mailto:). Email programs assume mailto: protocol unless you specify a different protocol (such as http://) some email programs also accept www. as a shorthand for http://www. and so recognise addresses written without the http:// provided that they start with www.

Apostropartheid
11-25-2007, 12:52 AM
1) London's perhaps the worst place for rubbish language, and I've never heard it here :O

2) I'm sure domain.com doesn't mind! But...I didn't know example.com was specifically reserved for use. That's something interesting to know. Learn (& here, probably lose) a few things everyday.

3) That's confusing, but yeah.

abduraooft
03-18-2008, 09:34 AM
Whatever be the idea or movement is, this enables to serve two websites at a cost of one domain .
http://freesql.org/
http://www.freesql.org/ :D :D



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum