Comments on: www. is NOT deprecated

By: Uncle Che

Uncle Che — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:51:54 +0000

I am not a techie, so i don’t understand most of the terms you guys use here. All I know is www is a subdomain and i will not set a subdomain as the prefered url of my site. I rather use theworldahead.com than http://www.theworldahead.com

By: hm2k

hm2k — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:37:16 +0000

The argument for has more weight than the argument against, that’s for sure.

By: Columbus Search Marketing

Columbus Search Marketing — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:41:33 +0000

This is a pretty weak argument for keeping the http://www. There are no real valid points to be found here. Simply redirecting any www traffic to the regular domain name addresses any concerns or issues (people can still access the site that way) but we can stop using it for any other purposes. Eventually, it will go away due to natural selection just like many other things that have outlived their purposes. Simply saying “keep it because we’ve always had it” is not an argument. Many worthless things that had always been are gone today, and the world is a better place because of it.

By: Roberto Bermejo Blog. » WWW sí o no?

Roberto Bermejo Blog. » WWW sí o no? — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:31:09 +0000

[...] Si a las www [...]

By: Basalt

Basalt — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:15:10 +0000

“Removing the “www.” because you think it’s “hip and trendy” or because you think “it’s no longer needed” or even “the mass media are doing it” is plain stupid.”

You claim it’s stupid to get rid of something that is no longer needed? And how do you support that argument? What? With your personal opinion? Oh, then it must be the truth.

“It’s a bit like “breaking the back button” (see: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html), it confuses people.”

Althought I disagree it will cause mass hysteria amongst the masses: breaking the back button is just plain annoying, deprecating www is new. Everything new confuses. It’s still no reason to not move to better.

“You say this but how many times have I seen addresses such as: “http://www@example.com” on company stationary and signage, too many. For them it still works in their browser, and it looks right, but we know it’s not.”

So we get rid of one element and people have smaller possibility to go wrong.

“example.com is often not detected as a URL, however http://www.example.com is.”

You don’t really give a bunch of numbers to someone without informing the person it’s a phone number. We have lived with those for quite some time, I think we can handle URL’s without www too (and most companies already are advertising without it,)

“People need to stop being so ignorant about this.”

It’s not such a big deal. I think we can safely agree that only thing that really matters is using either www or no-www, and direct the traffic to the other one. It’s no use forcing people to the other.

By: URL con o sin WWW, esa es la cuestión en PHPBSD.net

URL con o sin WWW, esa es la cuestión en PHPBSD.net — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:42:03 +0000

[...] Actualmente podríamos decir que es una cuestión de gustos usar o no la WWW para nuestras URL, te encuentras con partidarios del NO, como la iniciativa no-www.org, y otros que exponen interesantes motivos de porque SÍ, como en HM2K. [...]

By: Elektronik Forum

Elektronik Forum — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:28:53 +0000

Speacial Thanks for the mod_rewrite method, it works (see http://www.stshome.de also http://stshome.de ) greate…

Thanks from Münster Germany

Gerald

By: hm2k

hm2k — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:00:44 +0000

Removing the “www.” because you think it’s “hip and trendy” or because you think “it’s no longer needed” or even “the mass media are doing it” is plain stupid.

It’s a bit like “breaking the back button” (see: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html), it confuses people.

You say this but how many times have I seen addresses such as: “http://www@example.com” on company stationary and signage, too many. For them it still works in their browser, and it looks right, but we know it’s not.

People need to stop being so ignorant about this.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:47:32 +0000

Anyone who doesn’t realize that “example.com” is a URI just because they don’t see “www” is an idiot! Lots of big companies are advertising their domains now without it, and they don’t use a “web icon.” And if you’re trying to get customers, you probably don’t want the business of some numbskull that doesn’t know “something.com” is a URI! “www” is outdated, takes extra space to print, and extra time to *say* when you are telling somebody a URI to go to. So, it’s a waste of time and space. I prefer to drop it. It’s not the 90’s anymore people! Just my 2 cents -j

By: René

René — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:17:12 +0000

Another reason you might want to use a subdomain is SSL. If you host several subdomains on one IP address, you can use a wildcard like *.example.org in your SSL certificate, and the certificate will be valid for all of them. If you use example.org as the CN in your SSL certificate, the certificate will not be valid for e.g. someuser.example.org.