If I recall correctly the use of "www" is for some load balancing purposes, where the domain owner could set the page-only content of his site to "www" subdomain and have the main domain redirect to "www", while the site contet itself could refer to a separate subdomain like "images" in the main domain, and in such subdomain have a more elaborated storage or setup. This avoids the need to aquire a full domain for reference of the other storage of things.
I don't want to advertise non-free JavaScript, nor centralized and non-federated services, but I think some calls YouTube pages do actually refer to somethings under a domain called "ything", but are actually part of YouTube. 2018-01-24T17:25:43-0500 Julie Marchant wrote: > I get the impression that the whole trend of using the "www" subdomain > came from Usenet hierarchies. Is that accurate? > > In any case, many websites these days don't do that anymore, and even > when they did it was never necessary. So yeah, it's inaccurate to say > that websites' URLs *should* have that prefix. Just optional fluff some > people like to use. -- - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno - Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com gratis). - "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo. - Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard - Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV. - Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
