Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: phranque
Can't seem to find anything regarding this online, and honestly it sounds a bit nitpicky to me. But it did get my curiosity stirred a bit. :) Anyone notice any "standard" in this?
I agree. In the US, I'd even go so far as to say it dates the material if any prefix is included in ad material. I'm not sure about instructional copy, I will say that the "http://www." seems like unnecessary noise to me, but I'd bet excluding it might draw a few complaints from those obsessive-compulsive types that actually read instructions.
About 18 months ago, I consulted on the development of a state road & waterway map for a particular region. This question was something of a big deal. Many wanted the full url of the matching site on the cover, I wanted just the domain.... I knew the project director, so I won. It looks great.
However, as soon as you start adding specific filenames onto the end, the whole symmetry thing gets blown out the window, so I generally add the http:// back on the beginning: http*//www.domain.com/directory/file.htm
There is no established standard, like there is for biliographic citations or whatnot. I don't think the librarians have gotten around to the URL question yet. ;)
(edited by: mivox at 7:26 pm (utc) on May 13, 2002)
A google search with the keyword phrase < internet style guide url > turns up citation guidelines at various institutions.
The American Library Association and the Library of Congress might be a good place to look too.
Apple Style Guide, Yale Style Manual, GE - Standards and Guidelines are worth looking at.
For example in our publications, distributed in print and PDF, the copyright page includes the statement, "An electronic copy of this document is available on our web site, www.domain.org."
BUT, when we put URLs in our printed materials pointing to specific pages within ours or another web site that we can trust will be there, we do include the protocol. For example, in bibliographies or footnotes where we point to a government document. The key considerations for us are that the URL is stable and highly likely to be correct for a long time, doesn't require registration to reach, and is one or more levels down from the root directory.
"If my domain is the source I may say something like this."
- from domain.com
The thing I hate is websites that don't resolve when I don't type in the www part. Like [icann.org...] does not work. I think it is important for not dot COMs to resolve to the non-www. When I type a domain name I type "Domain Ctrl-Enter" That takes me to "www.domain.com" But when I have to go to ICANN I type "ICANN.org", then remember they are screwed up and go back and add the www part.
It is a prestige symbol, ie: vanity, a must have.
I cater to many who will buy a domain name off me just for the prestige of having their stationary and business cards printed with a www.whatever.com printed on it.
Taking into account that the name that they own is the only .com in the World.
Many can replicate the TLD but there is only one .COM, so if you have it why not flaunt it.
Works for me.