No More “www”

By Daniel Miessler on November 26th, 2007: Tagged as Internet
  • DGM

    What about sites where the web server is offsite from the email server and other services?


    From a DNS management standpoint, it's easier to keep the www as an alias, because migrating services is much, much easier.

  • in sweden they say V V V

  • Ask those bunch of guys at Microsoft to do the same thing Apache can. I'm sorry, thats impossible....

  • That's what the hostnames are for. Again, as I say in the article, this isn't about getting rid of hostnames. It's about defaulting to the web content for the root of the domain.

  • Man, I remember sitting and watching TV about 5-7 years ago and the lady on MTV who was promoting some website said: "H tee tee pee, dubya, dubya, dubya dot _____ dot com". i agree with you though. Put this one up there with getting rid of comic sans!

  • What happens when different services are on different servers? Not all sites are small enough to host the www, db, and mail. If you have one server do a different service, you need separate domains (or prefixes).

  • WTF ?
    Just use a good webserver like apache and not an M$ wich can't rewrite.
    Apache can rewrite the url's. Hit the domain without www and rewite all to www or the other way if u like it more (www.domain rewrite to domain...) So u can reach the webiste with or without www.....
    I like the www and rewrite my urls to www.my-domain</p>

  • Freexe

    It's a shame that so many sites still don't support not using www.
    like my bank (halifax http://halifax-online.co.uk/)</p>

  • Ugly American

    Traffic for non-trivial sites is already remapped by protocol/port anyway and has been for years. When you hit sun.com on port 80 you get one bank of servers and on port 21 you get another.


    In short, prefixes are only needed if you have an idiot admin.


    Printing and typing them are a waste of resources.


    Speaking them is a waste of time.

  • Cyrious Garnetski

    Lets drop the ftp too. And the home. And domain names. Isn't typing 192.168.1.1 a lot easier than typing a long domain name?

  • The 'www' doesn't really denote which protocol is being used; that's done by the prefix, http://, ftp:// etc. So the 'www' is redundant, really, in an address such as http://www.foo.com. It starts with http, so we know it's a web page.


    Conversely, it's not unheard of to see FTP sites with www in their names: ftp://www.bar.com.


    So... I'm all for dropping the www. I think even the most inexperienced web users, were they to hear an ad or whatever stating "come by and visit us at acmewidgets.com", would know to go their browsers and enter 'acmewidgets.com', and expect to arrive at a web site.

  • This again?

  • I think it's a good idea. In fact, from day one I've never had "WWW" in my website url: MichaelGR.com

  • I've noticed a lot of reposts from you, Daniel. Are you in a blogging slump?


    Andrew,


    Internally, it's perfectly fine to have a "www" tld (for network identification), but that doesn't necessarily mean that your website needs to be identified (on the world wide web) by that tld. In fact, it could be quite confusing -- www is too generic.


    Chances are that any web server already has a meaningful hostname, and assigning it an alternate ("www") causes ambiguity.


    Or, let's say I have two (or more) web servers (each of which has a meaningful hostname). To which do I assign the "www" tld?


    I really haven't said what I'm trying to say because it's difficult to express. Why force a "www" on people when it's not necessary?

  • Yes, this is 100% right.

  • Brian

    It's faster to say "world wide web" or "Triple-U"
    There was an episode of "Home Movies" called "Everybody's Entitled to My Opinion" that played around with this concept.
    Me? I like to pronounce it as a long "w" sound.

  • Andrew

    People in the industry, who have to refer to www all the time actually pronounce it dub-dub-dub, an example of this can be heard/seen here:


    http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=136904&pvrid=201


    You will hear the Microsoft engineers refer to every Microsoft site that they run as dub-dub-dub ... plus it sounds cooler calling it that.


    :-)


    As far as removing the www all together in addresses ... that is a really bad idea from a technically speaking perspective (I've been a networker for 30 years now). As you touch in your article www was first used as a way to separate a web server from a ftp, email or the many other types of servers out there. www is technically called a hostname or tld (third level domain, not to be confused with the tld, or top level domain (.com, .net etc)). And to have it purely point to the root, may cause confusion in managing on larger systems and the DNS system.


    Most web servers, such as Apache, will allow a rewrite from the address www.example.com to example.com, if that is what the user wants, regardless of how things are setup at the gateway.


    Just my 1 cent.

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

twitter_icon

Sample Original Content


Information Security

Tutorials and Primers

Culture & Society

Technology & Science

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Miscellaneous

Tools & Projects


Blog Archives