.www deprecated?

[TryAgain]

Came across this page:

http://no-www.org/

"www" deprecated? What's the deal here?

[edited by: TryAgain at 11:56 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2003]

[edited by: engine at 12:27 pm (utc) on Dec. 5, 2003]
[edit reason] de-linked [/edit]

[benihana]

looks like their on a crusade to stop people using the w's.

while the site makes some valid points, im not going to worry about it at all.

ben

[Receptional Andy]

AFAIK, the correct term is depreciate - the missing 'i' implies disapproval more than anything else. Depreciated means that the value or usefulness of something has lessened, perhaps to the extent that it no longer needs to be used.

Using www before a domain name is just there for convenience and because most users expect it. It never actually did anything, and this situation hasn't changed, so I remain unconvinced that this fits the definition of deprecated in any case.

"Show off your no-www approved status" is just a vaguely inventive link building strategy if you ask me.

[TryAgain]

"Show off your no-www approved status" is just a vaguely inventive link building strategy if you ask me.

But to what purpose? There is practically nothing on that page, no banners.

[Receptional Andy]

>>But to what purpose? There is practically nothing on that page, no banners.

The same reason anyone encourages people to link to them - to get more visitors, and thus increase awareness of their campaign. I doubt if no-www.org are in it for the money lol ;)

[claus]

>> never actually did anything

Oh, it did. It showed www-enabled content with hyperlinks and HTML and such... Unlike, eg. ftp.domain.com, or gopher.domain.com, mail.domain.com, news.domain.com, or even intranet.domain.com...

Nowadays, the www-enabled content with hyperlinks and such is on the main domain (in most cases), there's really no need for the distinction anymore. So, i'd personally agree to anbody claiming that it's become obsolete.

/claus

[Receptional Andy]

>>Oh, it did.

I was looking at it more in technical than practical terms. The use of www is a convention rather than a necessary prefix in order to view web page content. It could have been any word (I believe machine names were commonly used at one point) and the fact that it is www is irrelevant.

My argument was that the reason the convention existed (to make it easy for people to type something to reach a web server) is still there and so its use is still recommended, although naturally not essential.

[rogerd]

RA, deprecate is a real word:

dep·re·cate tr.v.
- To express disapproval of; deplore.
- To belittle; depreciate.

In computer circles, it seems to have taken on the additional meaning, "no longer used". Hence, the Search Engine Spider forum here is flagged as "deprecated".

[Receptional Andy]

I didn't say it very clearly (didn't look it up), but I did mention that the word without the 'i' had a different meaning that expressed disapproval.

According to dictionary.com:

The first and fully accepted meaning of deprecate is “to express disapproval of.” But the word has steadily encroached on the meaning of depreciate.

So IMO enough people used the wrong word that it now has the same meaning as the correct one ;)

[rogerd]

Yeah, dictionary.com even lists depreciate as a meaning for deprecate. One wonders if that came about from confusion turning into common usage. The primary usage now, though, seems to be the technical one, like deprecated HTML tags. Those deprecated tags tend to depreciate quickly. ;)

[killroy]

www. never had any such use as to indicate the format or rendering of content. That is done by the http:// qualifier, which still doesn't indicate content but the protocol, i.e. instead of ftp:// or gopher://. The format of the content is and always has been indicated by the mime-type (not even the extension was ever used at the client, only, in old systems by the server to identify the mime type).

It was always a technical matter. A domain, and sub-domains. Back in the old day, to technical people it was simply a grouping, such as .com and .org. In fact there is no technical reason why there shouldn't be a website at [org...] The www is technically a standard sub-domain with NO special meaning. So it identifies a single machine in a particular domain.

Nowadays, domains are used by so many individuals and small entities that more often then not a single computer will take care of more then one domain, rather then multiple computers taking care of one domain.

Also, domain administration and registration has become so cheap that most people could afford seperate domains, rather then relying on subdomains.

So you might easily register ftp-domain.com and gopher-domain.com if you wanted to seperate those services.

In truth, due to the processign power of modern computers, a single machine can take care of these services. They are differentiated by protocol anyways, so it would seem much more sensible to have: [domain.com,...] ftp://domain.com and gopher://domain.com without any sub domain specifications.

In fact, when a single machine is concerned, or even a single IP, sub domains don't make any sense in the old technical meaning.

Of course, nowadays the only real advantage of sub-domains is that they are fully qualified domains under the control of the domain holder rather then of the TLD registrars.

This has a great implication for spammers who can great large numbers of domains without extra cost.

So, 301 your wwws and join hte modern days. If we can do USB and PCI and LCD, why shouldn't we be able to shed the old techy/geeky usage of www.?

SN

[edited by: killroy at 2:15 pm (utc) on Dec. 5, 2003]

[Chndru]

[OT]
I dont care whether they depreciate www or not. But, often i come across sites that dont have a redirect from domain.com to www.domain.com. And that sucks.

[claus]

>> www. never had any such use as to indicate the format or rendering of content

sort of.... should have put the word "server" there somewhere, as "the www server" would be one such single machine, but nevermind ;)

[Farix]

www, ftp and gopher are subdomains? I always thought they were machine names, often alias of a machine's names. Much like blue.abc.dom where Blue was the machine name on domain abc.dom.

[Rincewind]

I ran that site through a the html validator at w3c. Didn't validate. It also would pass on accessablility issues with no alt atributes on the images and a host of other errors. They purport to be an authority on how to run the web?

However, they have a point. People do like to put lables on everthing even if they are not needed.

[g1smd]

I prefer the www to be included, and for other subdomains to expressly say what they are mail, ftp, forum, etc.

I'll start a campaign to get websites to add the www to their standard URL!

There was a related campaign a few years ago: As www is so difficult to say quickly, some people wanted to replace www with web instead.

[robert adams]

It was my understanding that the www used to be necessary and that if you wanted to set up your server to not use it, you had to create an alias for it. Nowdays, most all servers are set to work with or without www. If the alias is not added the domain won't work without the www.

robert

[claus]

>> if you wanted to set up your server to not use it, you had to create an alias for it

Afaik, what you buy when you buy a domain name is the "second level domain", eg. the "domain" part of domain.com. With it comes the right to issue lower level domains (aka. higher numbered levels, or subdomains)

These "levels" are read from right to left and separated by dots. There is a fixed set of first level domains (or TLD's) representing nations as well as some for purposes that are not all that national in scope, eg. net, org, mil, info, com, etc. (the latter not being a tld, afaik)

The national domain authorities can impose restrictions on use for the lower level domains. For some "top level domains" (TLD's), eg ".uk" the second level is not available for sale, so in these cases you'll have to buy a "third level domain" in stead, eg, domain.co.uk

So,

If you buy a "dot-com domain" you are buying (the right to use) everything to the left of the dot in front of "com". By default this is only the domain name. The "prefix" www is separated from the domain name with a dot, and that means that it is a lower level domain, or subdomain.

Just like "domain" is a subdomain of "com", "www" is a subdomain of "domain".

So (again),

In order to get "www" to work, you have to create this subdomain, and make this subdomain an alias to the real domain. Not the other way round.

Added:
Normally all this is done at the "DNS level" (DNS: Domain Name System). DNS is not easily explained, but it's basically (as opposed to accurately) what regulates traffic between servers and clients. It is "the internet" as opposed to "the servers connected to the internet"

So, to get something to work on your server is not the same as to get something to work on the internet - your server may be configured the opposite way, just like cars in some countries drive in the opposite side of the road. The road is there in both cases, and the car might even be the same.

/claus

[killroy]

Moral of the story, just cos everybody's using www. doesn't make it neccesary or right.

Technically it's an ideosynchracy... Just like calling hte bits seperated by "/" on the right of the tld "directories". It's a url, each character has exactly the same value (BY DEFINITION OF A URL!). usign slashes and "directories" is just an ideosynchrazy of the underlying technology, such as windows machines and *nix servers.

In fact, most of my sites have no files or folders at all, nor does the "/" have any special meaning. In fact, you couldwrite an embedded system, running a large multi-page website without any such organisational structures as files or folders.

All I'm trying to say is, think basic, think what is it for, what is its purpoose, not HOW did we use it in the past, but WHY was it used that way, and is it indeed the best way to use that particular tool?

SN

[Jobarr]

I redirect my WWW subdomain to my domain...I did it after seeing this site a while ago because it got me thinking that WWW really had NO purpose. Plus it is better for search engines if www.example.com redirects to example.com instead of just showing the same content, which could hurt you.

So, some benefits:

• Less to remember (shorter URL)
  
• Less files for the search engines to index (they won't download your site twice, saving you bandwidth)
  
• Higher ranking in the search engines (PR won't be spread between them)
  

[futureX]

personally I always use my URLs without the www. but i dont see it too important to redirect :P

[trillianjedi]

I'll start a campaign to get websites to add the www to their standard URL!

I'll sign up for that one....

TJ

[bird]

It was my understanding that the www used to be necessary and that if you wanted to set up your server to not use it, you had to create an alias for it.

Whichever form you use you'll have to establish a DNS entry for, so that it can be resolved to an actual IP address. There never was a technical necessity for the "www."-part, the plain domain would have done just as well from the beginning. But it was a natural convention to assign IPs only to individual hosts under a domain.

What has changed is the perception of the www becoming the most popular application on the net, which resulted in the convention of making web sites accessible directly through the second level domain name. Just a few years ago, it would simply have been awkward to assign the plain domain name to this new and largely unknown service.

It's a matter of taste, really, and the decision may depend on a few other factors. If you use the same domain for other services as well (ftp, gopher, etc.), then I'd recommend to use the www, to make the difference obvious to humans (joe surfer can't decipher the "http://" prefix). If all that will ever happen on your domain is a web site, then it may be nicer to leave it away.

[robert adams]

a little clarification please.
Is there not (on an apache server) a file that you have to edit if you want the site to be available with or without the www?
Many hosting companies advertise this as something special, though I know it is not special, just a sales gimmick.

Back when I got my first domain name and hosting account. I had root access and could go in and edit that file. I don't remember what it's name is.
I also remember that if that file did not have the alias entered in it, then http:**domain.com would not work where
http:**www.domain.com would.

thanks,
robert

[photon]

Are you thinking of the .htaccess file?

[robert adams]

Are you thinking of the .htaccess file?

I don't think so. I will do a little research and get back to you.

thanks,
robert

[robert adams]

I found it. It is the httpd.conf file. Here is an example of where you used to do this with www and without www

NameVirtualHost 111.22.33.44

<VirtualHost 111.22.33.44>
ServerName www.domain.tld
ServerPath /domain
DocumentRoot /web/domain
</VirtualHost>

I don't know if it is still used or not.
anyway,

robert