Comments on: WWW Required http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required The Weblog of Erik J. Barzeski Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:18:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Neil D'Souza http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17277 Neil D'Souza Wed, 02 Nov 2005 07:07:55 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17277 You can even set this up at your registrar... register.com allows this. You can even set this up at your registrar... register.com allows this.

]]> By: Tienshiao Ma http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17276 Tienshiao Ma Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:57:18 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17276 I can understand the viewpoints of the "no-www" crowd, but I personally prefer the explicitness of the www. Another reason why it may be preferred by some sites is that if you make use of a Content Delivery Network (such as Akamai), the standard practice is to make your site (www. or whatever) a CNAME of an Akamai hostname. If you wanted to put the domain on Akamai (instead of a subdomain) you would need to use Akamai as your nameserver (since you can't CNAME the domain). This is obviously less flexible than running your own nameservers. I can understand the viewpoints of the "no-www" crowd, but I personally prefer the explicitness of the http://www.

Another reason why it may be preferred by some sites is that if you make use of a Content Delivery Network (such as Akamai), the standard practice is to make your site (www. or whatever) a CNAME of an Akamai hostname. If you wanted to put the domain on Akamai (instead of a subdomain) you would need to use Akamai as your nameserver (since you can't CNAME the domain). This is obviously less flexible than running your own nameservers.

]]> By: Simone Manganelli http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17275 Simone Manganelli Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:49:38 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17275 Ugh, yes, I hate this so very much too. And worst of all, my university ( http://stanford.edu/ oh whoops sorry http://www.stanford.edu/ ) has this problem. I have to remember to e-mail someone about that to get it changed... -- Simone Ugh, yes, I hate this so very much too. And worst of all, my university ( http://stanford.edu/ oh whoops sorry http://www.stanford.edu/ ) has this problem. I have to remember to e-mail someone about that to get it changed...

-- Simone

]]> By: Adam http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17274 Adam Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:03:48 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17274 On my domain names, I used to have www.blah.tld work identically to blah.tld; but I decided that I shouldn't be defining two separate locatable URIs for every resource (and they are technically two separate URIs, even if they look almost the same), so instead, I now set www.blah.tld to redirect to blah.tld. That's working well. Here's a good site dealing with this sensitive issue: http://no-www.org/ . They do it the same way as I do, redirecting www.no-www.org to no-www.org. On my domain names, I used to have http://www.blah.tld work identically to blah.tld; but I decided that I shouldn't be defining two separate locatable URIs for every resource (and they are technically two separate URIs, even if they look almost the same), so instead, I now set http://www.blah.tld to redirect to blah.tld. That's working well.

Here's a good site dealing with this sensitive issue: http://no-www.org/ . They do it the same way as I do, redirecting http://www.no-www.org to no-www.org.

]]> By: Daniel http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17273 Daniel Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:40:57 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17273 I don't really care about that so much, but two related things that annoy me are: - spoken URLs (like on TV) don't work. Example: while the TV shows "www.today.msnbc.com," Katie & Matt only actually say "today.msnbc.com." Many times, the actual spoken URL does not work - the implied www is required. How stupid. - static URLs that don't end in a slash. I've relaxed on this one a lot, but I still prefer nice clean URLs that go to directories with an index file, instead of directly to a file. I don't really care about that so much, but two related things that annoy me are:
- spoken URLs (like on TV) don't work. Example: while the TV shows "www.today.msnbc.com," Katie & Matt only actually say "today.msnbc.com." Many times, the actual spoken URL does not work - the implied www is required. How stupid.
- static URLs that don't end in a slash. I've relaxed on this one a lot, but I still prefer nice clean URLs that go to directories with an index file, instead of directly to a file.

]]> By: Olivier http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17272 Olivier Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:21:10 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17272 Some hosting providers have their home page appear for any domain accessed without the www. That's close to domain hijacking, I don't understand how they customenrs let them get away with it. Some hosting providers have their home page appear for any domain accessed without the http://www. That's close to domain hijacking, I don't understand how they customenrs let them get away with it.

]]> By: Frode Danielsen http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17271 Frode Danielsen Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:16:38 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17271 Heh, noticed just now that I commented on this the last time as well. Yeah, it must be quite a pet-peeve of mine too! The second comment on your last post on the topic was also a good read again. Heh, noticed just now that I commented on this the last time as well. Yeah, it must be quite a pet-peeve of mine too! The second comment on your last post on the topic was also a good read again.

]]> By: Frode Danielsen http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required#comment-17270 Frode Danielsen Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:10:49 +0000 http://nslog.com/2005/10/31/www_required/#comment-17270 Agreed. I don't understand the hosts that don't get this right. I experience it quite often with .no TLDs. My dad, providing hosting services, have been making the case of the unnecessary "www" for a long time :-) Agreed. I don't understand the hosts that don't get this right. I experience it quite often with .no TLDs. My dad, providing hosting services, have been making the case of the unnecessary "www" for a long time :-)

]]>