Eliminating “www” [Part 2]

By Daniel Miessler on July 26th, 2007: Tagged as Internet | Protocols | Standards

I posted recently about why we no longer need to enter “www” when visiting websites in a browser. The topic is evidently an emotional one as I’ve received a ton of feedback on the matter. For those that missed it, here’s the basic argument:

The reason for using the “www” hostname prefix when entering websites is now a matter of history. It’s old. Deprecated. Outdated. Antiquated. Like websites that only work in Internet Explorer, sites that break when you use the domain alone should be firmly encouraged to join the 21st century. It’s wasteful to type, and it’s cumbersome to pronounce. Consider that it takes nine syllables to properly enunciate three characters.

Some argue that there is still a good reason to separate traffic destined to web servers from that destined to the domain itself. I think this is precisely the idea that’s become obsolete. The reason for that differentiation in the past was that the other protocols were as prolific (or even more prolific) than HTTP at the time. HTTP was just one of many, so it made no sense at the time to give any type of traffic a preference by pointing the root of a given domain to the system that hosted that content.

Things are different now. HTTP is utterly dominant. Any site interacting with the public on any serious scale does so via a web server, so making this the default is a matter of obvious practicality. This doesn’t mean we should abolish the use of hostnames. Hostnames are excellent tools for separating traffic and making meaningful associations with users. The argument here is simply for having the root point to the web content.

Compatibility

There are four basic levels of no-www compatibility:
  1. Your site is available via www.domain.tld only. If you use the domain alone your request will fail.
  2. Your site is available via both www.domain.tld and domain.tld, but www.domain.tld does not redirect to domain.tld.
  3. Your site is available via both www.domain.tld and domain.tld, and www.domain.tld does redirect to domain.tld.
  4. Your site is available only via domain.tld and www.domain.tld will break.
I personally recommend webmasters implement #3, and don’t advise #4 for any reason. The discussion here is about improving usability through simplification, not breaking things for the satisfaction of being pedantic.:





--



3 Comments »

  1. It’s a bit disappointing to me that the majority of comments to your original post disagreed with the premise of no-www, often on the basis of misunderstanding. “But I can just hit ctrl-enter!” or “The internet isn’t just the web!” or “Not all sites work this way!”. I guess people just don’t read the article in the first place.

    Having said the above, I still believe that in print, one should include either “http://” or “www.” in front of the domain name. Unless you’re specifically targeting a very hip, tech-savvy audience, most people won’t recognise a lone domain name something they can type into their browser.

    Finally, as I mentioned in my reply to your original post, a subdomain of some sort is required when using a CDN like Akamai. I think the most important point to take away from this is that web publishers should use redirection to maintain a consistent web presence under a single name. Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.

    Comment by Greg Hewgill — 7/29/2007 @ 5:31 am

  2. Great points, Greg.

    Comment by Daniel Miessler — 7/29/2007 @ 9:11 am

  3. Daniel, you’re in the Boston Globe. The Business Filter on Page 2 of Business and Innovation has a blurb about this post!

    Comment by Richard Neal — 7/30/2007 @ 6:09 pm

RSS Feed For This Post...
This Post's TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment...