Slashdot Mirror

Simple: enforce it, ignore those who pout, 3 years later you're done. Kinda like nobody had problems from typing nothing whatsoever to typing "www" or "com" when that was required to visit a website.

But you're right when it comes to www, it is the responsibility of webmasters to get rid of it.

Users, webmasters, designers, and even web architects can't convince themselves to get rid of www

The latter interests me: I'd love to read clueful arguments *for* the www prefix. Never saw any so far, and plenty of sites seem to have no use for it. And I don't just meant URL shorteners*.

It's like an appendix, like dead code... sure, you can leave useless stuff there, and everything still works fine. But you can also *remove* that appendix, shave your eyebrows, cut off your ears and become the fastest swimmer the world has ever seen! Just saying.

* you know, the ones that are supposed to be "more readable" for everyone and their dog's grandma, where the www prefix never even was considered? Weird, huh.

I really don't understand what the fuss is about. Why would I care whether or not a url is redirected to a "www"-variant? If anything, I wouldn't want to do business with someone who seems to be as passionate as you are about such an irrelevant detail. After all, who knows what else they'll freak out about.

A campaign against making web pages in Courier would seem like a much more useful endeavour. Now there's something that looks "amateurish and outdated".

Yeah, i was a web developer for the last two years of the 2000s (and still do a little bit now and then) and i know what you mean. But it was possible to convince people by then - i'm sure it wasn't possible a few years earlier.

But this is a very good reason why it's such a good indicator of whether the people running the business know what they're doing or not - if they do know what they're doing, they'll take advice from their web dev. If they think they know better than the web dev, then they're clearly too stupid to be trusted with my business!

And it's not just me who's not happy with it - there are at least 38,000 of us!

This should go without saying, but there is a general movement towards dropping the requirement for users to type the (worthless|redundant) "www."whateveryouwant.com into the browser. For one thing it reduces confusion: if your website is www.yoursite.com then your email address should be AnonymousCoward@www.yoursite.com - but it's not: you have to drop the www. in order to deliver correctly. Making the default behavior work based on DNS and/or protocol (port address) whenever possible is widely appreciated. It removes the "www." from google.com, etc.

P.S. - This has been a contentious issue since at least 1997 which was when I tuned in, and it is generally accepted that the "assholes" are the ones on the "www." side :)

I know what a CNAME is (and I have plenty of them, mostly pointing to ghs.google.com, but that is another story), but I was trying to point out the no-www certification level Class C?

Are you sure?
There are other points-of-view of course.

Offtopic, but I'd much rather you typed in whatever.com.

      --- Mr. DOS

Let's just drop www altogether!

Hear hear!

No WWW!

Ideally, do what I do: Set up www.example.com to permanently redirect to example.com. Or, at least, redirect the other way.

It's kind of irritating when people just make them point to the same place -- this destroys cache coherency if I follow different links to the site, or if there are any absolute URLs there, and there's also the slight possibility that the site will behave differently on one than the other, or cookies won't be shared, or something like that.

I'm tempted to actually not redirect that way, but to show a short message first, but that would probably be just as annoying.

an interesting and a cute idea.
Galaxy Wide Web might be a little catchier tho.
Tho the whole www thing is dead. http://no-www.org/

or maybe we should expend the meaning of the word 'world'.Just as it was expended during the exploration of this planet. Hence the 'new world', 'old world'.

What is world? And don't pull wikipedia definitions on me. As I have stated the word 'world' has changed its meaning through time, or rather expended it. Maybe we should do it again?

Thought you might appreciate this.

Keep up with the times, or at least tell the people who worry about such things about this...

Firstly, all of the funny legal notices are linked to from the main TPB page under 'Legal threats', they are most certainly still there.

Secondly, redirecting from http://www.foo.com/ to just http://foo.com/ is quite common and normal. The domain is owned by the same person/group, as www is just a subdomain, and the redirect just serves to remind users that www is deprecated.

There's a lot more to it at http://no-www.org/ and rest assured that The Pirate Bay is still being operated by the same folk.

Argh, one of my biggest web pet-peeves.

The other probably being sites that require 'www'.

For more info on that "movement", see -

www. is deprecated.

http://no-www.org/

What an idiot .... 'www.' is just a subdomain. No current web server needs to have a subdomain. They will default ro 'www.' if no sub domain is provided. http://no-www.org/