Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: no more www

  1. #1
    Master Coder Excavator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    9,675
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,827 Times in 1,811 Posts

    no more www

    I think this is a great idea! The www in front of urls should be deprecated.

    Validate often DURING development - Use it like a splelchecker | Debug during Development |Write it for FireFox, ignore IE
    Use the right DocType | Validate your markup | Validate your CSS | Why validating is good | Why tables are bad

  • #2
    Master Coder felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,592
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 645 Times in 635 Posts
    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.
    Stephen
    Learn Modern JavaScript - http://javascriptexample.net/
    Helping others to solve their computer problem at http://www.felgall.com/

    Don't forget to start your JavaScript code with "use strict"; which makes it easier to find errors in your code.

  • #3
    The Apostate Apostropartheid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 265 Times in 263 Posts
    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.

  • #4
    Supreme Master coder! _Aerospace_Eng_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    In a place far, far away...
    Posts
    19,291
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,043 Times in 1,019 Posts
    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.
    ||||If you are getting paid to do a job, don't ask for help on it!||||

  • #5
    Senior Coder CFMaBiSmAd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Denver, Colorado USA
    Posts
    3,011
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 312 Times in 304 Posts
    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.
    If you are learning PHP, developing PHP code, or debugging PHP code, do yourself a favor and check your web server log for errors and/or turn on full PHP error reporting in php.ini or in a .htaccess file to get PHP to help you.

  • #6
    The fat guy next door VIPStephan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Halle (Saale), Germany
    Posts
    8,607
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 997 Times in 970 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CyanLight View Post
    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.

  • #7
    Master Coder Excavator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    9,675
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 1,827 Times in 1,811 Posts
    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.
    Validate often DURING development - Use it like a splelchecker | Debug during Development |Write it for FireFox, ignore IE
    Use the right DocType | Validate your markup | Validate your CSS | Why validating is good | Why tables are bad

  • #8
    The Apostate Apostropartheid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 265 Times in 263 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VIPStephan View Post
    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 [url="http://www.mydomain.com"]www.mydomain.com[/url] -- 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.)
    Last edited by Apostropartheid; 11-24-2007 at 06:39 PM.

  • #9
    The fat guy next door VIPStephan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Halle (Saale), Germany
    Posts
    8,607
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 997 Times in 970 Posts
    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?

  • #10
    The Apostate Apostropartheid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 265 Times in 263 Posts
    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?

  • #11
    Master Coder felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    6,592
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 645 Times in 635 Posts
    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.
    Stephen
    Learn Modern JavaScript - http://javascriptexample.net/
    Helping others to solve their computer problem at http://www.felgall.com/

    Don't forget to start your JavaScript code with "use strict"; which makes it easier to find errors in your code.

  • #12
    The Apostate Apostropartheid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 265 Times in 263 Posts
    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.

  • #13
    Supreme Master coder! abduraooft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    14,849
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 2,223 Times in 2,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    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/
    The Dream is not what you see in sleep; Dream is the thing which doesn't let you sleep. --(Dr. APJ. Abdul Kalam)


  •  

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •