To clarify, I agree with you and Luke down below that www subdomain is nice and useful. It's only the tacit assumption that www.whatever.com = whatever.com that I find annoying :)
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 21:38:29 bill-auger wrote: > 'www.' is indeed just a convention but it is not a "traditional" thing > of the past that should go away - it's meaning is still as well defined > and useful today as it ever was - sub-domains are very plainly a way to > distinguish one machine or service from the various other services that > may be offered under the base domain anme (which is often not associated > with any server), and to allow each machine or service to have a it's > own IP address (perhaps at different physical locations), while > remaining semantically associated under the umbrella of the main domain name > > in the case of the 'www.' sub-domain in 'http://www.foo.com', that > clearly identifies the HTTP "World Wide Web" server of foo.com - as > distinguished from it's FTP server ftp.foo.com, it's mail server > smtp.foo.com, it's usenet server news.foo.com, and so on - some domains > have only a web server and so there is no confusion if there is a 'www.' > sub-domain or not; but to assume that as the default case is to assume > that every client that asks for 'foo.com' should always get a World Wide > Web server, which is to ignore the plethora of other services that can > be offered under the same domain as well the possibility that foo.com > may have no web server at all
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
