www. is NOT deprecated
Update: This was an opinion piece written back in 2005 to provoke discussion from the other side of the argument. Read the comments for the most up-to-date information and feel free to add your opinion below.
Having no www. is wrong. Why?
- Having www helps clarify the purpose of the url. ie: www is world wide web, webmail is for web based email, etc
- Using the www. subdomain allows your website to be more versatile in terms of DNS and changes of IP address.
- The major websites still use the www. prefix. See http://www.google.com/search?q=www and http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global?=none
- www has been used since the dawn of the world wide web why would we stop using it now?
- example.com is often not detected as a URL, however www.example.com is.
- When communicating URLs its shorter, easier and quicker to use www.example.com vs. http://example.com/
- Removing the www. would not make sense, it would make more sense to change the prefix subdomain to web. allowing this to be the new standard.
- People still use and want the www. prefix the same way they would use the ftp. prefix or wap. prefix.
- Using the www. prefix helps readers of printed advertisements (tv, newspapers, flyers etc) define what it is.
- Domains that use common TLDs (.com .net .org .co.uk) can be identified as domains, however domains with unusual TLDs may not be identified (eg: example.be, example.to, example.at, example.tv, etc).
- Sometimes the content of example.com is different than the content of www.example.com
- Name Server hosts (eg: ns1.example.com, ns2.example.com) must be unique, must have at least two, and must have different IPs. So why shouldn’t web hosts?
Why can’t we just use both?
You can use both as long as you redirect your traffic from one to the other (eg: example.com redirects to www.example.com). Why?
Well that is simple. It affects the way your website is optimised.
As search engines see a subdomain as a separate site if you run your website on www.example.com and example.com it effectivly means you have two copies of the same website. This means you are taking the focus from one website to two, if you wish to build up traffic it is best to make things as simple as possible for your visitors. Let them know that there is only one URL for your website, as this will considerably help you when people add backlinks to their website, or bookmark your website. It will also help with how search engines index and rank your website.
Its quite important that when you start developing a website you decide whether your going to direct your visitors to www.example.com or example.com as you will need to focus on one.
Redirection
These redirection methods are used to redirect your domain (eg: example.com) or wildcard subdomain (ie: *.example.com) to www.example.com.
mod_rewrite method:
Add this to your .htaccess file (providing mod_rewrite modual is installed in your apache). (See Apache mod_rewrite)
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.example.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]
php method:
Place this at the top of your index.php in your php code.
if ($_SERVER["HTTP_HOST"] != "www.example.com") { header("Location: http://www.example.com/"); die; }
Hostnames, protocols and examples
- ftp.example.com – Used in conjunction with the ftp:// protocol (See rfc0959)
- irc.example.com – Used in conjunction with the irc:// protocol (See rfc1459)
- mail.example.com – The mail protocol is different, a mail server’s IP must resolve to the mail server’s host. (See rfc2821)
- ns?.example.com – This forms the construct of DNS, you may NOT use the domain name as a Name Server. (See rfc2782)
As you can see in all these examples, as long as example.com is pointing to the same IP as the host, you could use the domain name instead of one of the hosts above.
The Spamcalc website explains the original concept and usage of Subdomains/Hostnames. It explains that the original purpose of subdomains is to show a hierarchical (eg: computername.subdomain.domain.topleveldomain).
This makes sense when looking at the above protocols and services. As originally, and still today depending on demands, each service is run on a seperate machine (or seperate machines) as an attempt to dispurse heavy usage loads. However unless you run a large international network and have many thousands of users chances are you do not need this kind of structure. It is also apparent that as computers are getting faster and faster they are more than capable of running all these services on one machine.
As your website/services expand, it makes sense that you might need to shift your services onto different machines, to achieve this each machine will need a different IP address. Therefore they will require a different host, as both servers cannot use the domain name, they will need to be assigned the specific hostname, which will ultimately depend on what service they will be running.
Although it sounds complicated, its actually very simple, which is why it makes sense to use the prefix.
Arguments for the other way
Apart from the points made at no-www.org the other reasons why www. has deprecated…
- Browsers will understand a domain name is a website and add the http:// protocol to reach the website.
- The “World Wide Web” phrase has become somewhat outdated, and is now simply known as “The Web” or web.
- The youth of today can identify that a domain (eg: example.com) is a website.
- You don’t send email to [email protected]
Resources
- www.yes-www.org – An odd website for the www prefix
- no-www.org – A website against the www prefix
- no-www – Wikipedia entry
- rfc2606 – Explains the usage of example.com throughout this document
no-www.htm
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /Users/wade/Sites/hm2k.org/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /Users/wade/Sites/hm2k.org/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
[…] www. is NOT deprecated (tags: www) […]
Here’s a great reason that avoiding www. is a bad idea:
http://simonwillison.net/2007/Feb/4/urls/#c35427
Cookies that you set on example.com are available to all subdomains; cookies that you set on http://www.example.com aren’t. By using example.com you’re limiting yourself to having your cookies “leak” to any subdomains you later setup.
Just make both work, and have one redirect to the other. Which one you then use as the normative one doesn’t really matter. If cookie leaking is a bad thing for you, go with www. If it’s a wanted feater, drop www. It’s not really much to discuss anymore.
Uhm, s/feater/feature. A preview mechanism would be nice! 😉 Oh, and I love the way “www” is recognized as an URI by the comment parser.
[…] HM2K är man oxå för www. där av mer konkreta anledningar. där anses prefixen spela en betydande […]
[…] di un sito, sia ormai cosa superata. Per alcuni, il “www” è addirittura deprecato. Su hm2k.com è stato pubblicato un interessante articolo contenente alcune buone ragioni (pratiche, […]
If you have a look on the no-www site, their stated philosophy is:
Whether you agree that www is deprecated or not, they are suggesting the same action as you are.
I think some of you should re-read my article again as its seems as though some of you have mis-understood the point.
Main points are:
– removing the www is probably/possible a bad idea
– having two sites (same content) on different domains is a bad idea
– i agree that both www. and non-www should be accessible
– the www. domain should be the primary domain
[…] On the opposite site, http://www.hm2k.com/articles/yes-www/ proposes that using ‘www.’ is a good […]
Regarding your point ‘Using the www. prefix helps readers of printed advertisements’, I tend to think that confusion over what is a domain name and what isn’t a domain name can be overcome by using a ‘web’ icon next to it. I also think that domain names are easily recognised since the are words seperated by a period ‘.’
People also use the “web” icon to represent email too, as often they are not aware of the difference.
I cannot begin to explain how often I have seen variations of urls and email addresses mangled together.
ie: “http://[email protected]”, I really don’t think the “icon” you use next to matters.
The major problem with dropping the www. is in media, that is my concern.
Often you will see a companies URL/domain taking up the large part of an advertisement, you wouldn’t expect an icon next to that.
I could not begin to explain about how many times I have witnessed people attempt to type spaces in domain names, yet they always (ALWAYS!) manage to get the www. part correct, as they KNOW (think they know) all websites start with that.
Although dropping the www. from your url is “oh so web 2.0”, you have to think about how your “web 1.0” userbase will deal with this.
In summery, generally for the masses dropping the www. is a bad idea, it just confuses the user. But if you want to be hip and trendy, feel free to drop it.
To me it doesn’t matter, the purpose of this article was to show people the other side of the argument and make their own decision.
Another reason you might want to use a subdomain is SSL. If you host several subdomains on one IP address, you can use a wildcard like *.example.org in your SSL certificate, and the certificate will be valid for all of them. If you use example.org as the CN in your SSL certificate, the certificate will not be valid for e.g. someuser.example.org.
Anyone who doesn’t realize that “example.com” is a URI just because they don’t see “www” is an idiot! Lots of big companies are advertising their domains now without it, and they don’t use a “web icon.” And if you’re trying to get customers, you probably don’t want the business of some numbskull that doesn’t know “something.com” is a URI! “www” is outdated, takes extra space to print, and extra time to *say* when you are telling somebody a URI to go to. So, it’s a waste of time and space. I prefer to drop it. It’s not the 90’s anymore people! Just my 2 cents -j
Removing the “www.” because you think it’s “hip and trendy” or because you think “it’s no longer needed” or even “the mass media are doing it” is plain stupid.
It’s a bit like “breaking the back button” (see: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html), it confuses people.
You say this but how many times have I seen addresses such as: “http://[email protected]” on company stationary and signage, too many. For them it still works in their browser, and it looks right, but we know it’s not.
People need to stop being so ignorant about this.
Speacial Thanks for the mod_rewrite method, it works (see http://www.stshome.de also http://stshome.de ) greate…
Thanks from Münster Germany
Gerald
[…] Actualmente podríamos decir que es una cuestión de gustos usar o no la WWW para nuestras URL, te encuentras con partidarios del NO, como la iniciativa no-www.org, y otros que exponen interesantes motivos de porque SÍ, como en HM2K. […]
“Removing the “www.” because you think it’s “hip and trendy” or because you think “it’s no longer needed” or even “the mass media are doing it” is plain stupid.”
You claim it’s stupid to get rid of something that is no longer needed? And how do you support that argument? What? With your personal opinion? Oh, then it must be the truth.
“It’s a bit like “breaking the back button” (see: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html), it confuses people.”
Althought I disagree it will cause mass hysteria amongst the masses: breaking the back button is just plain annoying, deprecating www is new. Everything new confuses. It’s still no reason to not move to better.
“You say this but how many times have I seen addresses such as: “http://[email protected]” on company stationary and signage, too many. For them it still works in their browser, and it looks right, but we know it’s not.”
So we get rid of one element and people have smaller possibility to go wrong.
“example.com is often not detected as a URL, however http://www.example.com is.”
You don’t really give a bunch of numbers to someone without informing the person it’s a phone number. We have lived with those for quite some time, I think we can handle URL’s without www too (and most companies already are advertising without it,)
“People need to stop being so ignorant about this.”
It’s not such a big deal. I think we can safely agree that only thing that really matters is using either www or no-www, and direct the traffic to the other one. It’s no use forcing people to the other.
[…] Si a las www […]
This is a pretty weak argument for keeping the www. There are no real valid points to be found here. Simply redirecting any www traffic to the regular domain name addresses any concerns or issues (people can still access the site that way) but we can stop using it for any other purposes. Eventually, it will go away due to natural selection just like many other things that have outlived their purposes. Simply saying “keep it because we’ve always had it” is not an argument. Many worthless things that had always been are gone today, and the world is a better place because of it.
The argument for has more weight than the argument against, that’s for sure.
I am not a techie, so i don’t understand most of the terms you guys use here. All I know is www is a subdomain and i will not set a subdomain as the prefered url of my site. I rather use theworldahead.com than http://www.theworldahead.com
[…] das ist die große Frage. Im Web gibt es dazu einige Kontroversen. Es gibt eigene Seiten pro www aber auch kontra www. Und manchen gefällt das www so sehr, dass sie sogar für zwei www, also […]
Being a lazy surfer I prefer to type omit the www and just type the domain name. However, I am also of the opinion that this should just be a shortcut to the website and that the server should instruct the browser to redirect to the www subdomain. Further, it is my opinion that the file should also be included, as, technically, the page you are viewing is a resource and not a domain/subdomain. Therefore, typing in “example.com” would resolve to “www.example.com/index.html”. This also has the advantage of ensuring that search engines crawl a single resource, as each variation (ie example.com, example.com/index.html, http://www.example.com and http://www.example.com/index.html) is regarded as a unique URL and, thereby, reduces the pages rankings (if accessed using multiple variations).
Regardless of whether people want to prevent the early onset of carpal tunnel syndrome and claim that the www has no use, so long as a significant number of people and computers find a need for the www, it’s here to stay. I was shocked to find out that the folks at WordPress had removed the www entirely from usage, which I found absurd. As someone else pointed out, search engines view http://www.domain.com and http://domain.com as two completely different sites. Now if your site has been running for a long time using a “www” and you’ve set pathways for your site to use it, e.g. src=http://www.domain.com” then you’ve got a heck of a task in trying to find all those instances to “correct” them. Then you’ve got the stand in typed text like you do here — http://www.domain.com is automatically hyperlinked in text in many blogs, such as WordPress. Simple domain.com entries are NOT hyperlinked. By that feature alone, WordPress contradicts itself in forcing you to use the “no-www” method because they are telling you to NOT use it yet they have a plugin recognizing that people will use it and it is useful. We haven’t even talked about the other search engines which will continue to look at www and non-www sites as separate sites… You got the point. The no-www people are self-righteous and just ought to give it up already and deal with typing the characters.
If you dont need www, dont put it up. If you do, do! My site will accept both, but google only displays one. I think it is necessity… I also think that if people go no-www compliant, they should still have the www subdomain work, for people who still try and use it…. just my thoughts…
Nowadays having ‘www’ or not is purely a preference, ‘www’ is in fact depreciated.
‘www’ used to depict an internet server, while without ‘www’ would be an intranet server.
‘www’ is defined by:
‘[i]The complete set of documents residing on all Internet servers that use the HTTP protocol, accessible to users via
a simple point-and-click system.[/i]’
Web browsers nowadays automatically prepend ‘http://’ onto the requested URL. ‘www’ is now just a useless subdomain.
‘www’ can be for offline advertising, when someone hears ‘double-you-double-you-double-you’ they immediately know
you’re talking about a website. This is fine, as you can 301 redirect all requests for http://www.example.com to example.com.
Other than that, the only reason to keep www dot is if you have a large established site with a high pagerank. Your
backlinks may become invalid if you go from with-www to without-www, or vice versa.
Rene said – “Another reason you might want to use a subdomain is SSL. If you host several subdomains on one IP address, you can use a wildcard like *.example.org in your SSL certificate, and the certificate will be valid for all of them. If you use example.org as the CN in your SSL certificate, the certificate will not be valid for e.g. someuser.example.org.”
That’s not true is it?
I have 10 sub-domain and only 1 has a SSL, I was I could only have 1 per IP address?
I don’t like not using www. for a website. Hostnames like ‘irc’, ‘mail’ and also ‘www’ are key elements in a proper and logical URI. Screwing with that is stupid and creates only confusion.
The www host is a way to tell strangers that if they want general information, they should look on the machine where it is CNAME’d to. CNAMEs are really handy and that’s why lots of people use them. But because it is new and exciting to leave the www. out nowadays there are enough idiots that copy the CNAME into @. Which works about 80% of the time because as I remember it putting a CNAME into @ will give different results depending on the client querying, and can so go unnoticed for a long time.
All this bullshit is screwing up DNS. If it is a webserver: label it as such, lazy bastards. You all know the internet is well over 98% complete idiots, so why propose something that is likely to confuse >5% of those 98% at one point or another, screws up DNS in the process and also creates a political discussion about it worldwide? I must now use at least a couple hundered non-www hosts to compensate for the time I took to write this comment, otherwise I don’t even win time!
Basically if you want .www to go you are an idiot and should get off the internet and step away from the computer. Step away sir!
I work in tech support. I work with the sort of people who will be most affected by cessation of the www subdomain.
This is how the beginning of most calls will go:
“Blah blah hello thank you for calling blah blah etc., to get started let’s open Internet Explorer”
. . .
“Now go to sub.example.com”
Besides typing it into the search bar, the most common error is going to http://www.sub.example.com. I have to remind the customer at this point that I said sub.example.com, not http://www.sub.example.com. http://www.sub.example.com redirects to a page nowhere near where we are trying to go. This happens regularly.
In this most significant portion of my experience, unquestioning reliance on the validity of any web address with www in front of it causes nothing but trouble. I find myself agreeing with the no-www position: That we should preserve www subdomains for those who end up typing them, but teach the general internet user base that it is unnecessary and does not go arbitrarily at the beginning of every web address. To this end I will be redirecting http://www.jack.is to jack.is.
[…] geçemeyece?im internette yes-www ve no-www sava?? yap?l?yor. Herkezin hakl? taraf? var benim ?ahsen www kulland???m site […]
[…] si les interesa conocer diferentes opiniones del porque CON WWW y el porque del SIN WWW pueden visitar estas paginas. SIN-WWW: no-www.org CON-WWW: hm2k […]
I run a local small business. The way I do it for our web campaign is assume and redirect all traffic simply to example.com. Of course, I have the www. available for those who type it, and I use the www. on print media to clearly show that it is a URL, although I am not sure at this point if it is necessary, but just a safety measure. I’m up for anything that makes life a bit simpler and no-www is one way.
@Jackson
How does sending users from http://www.example.com to example.com make things simpler?
Surely redirecting example.com to http://www.example.com would just as simple and better for the end user.
[…] Intranet…Weitere Argumente für www, und teilweise gegen www, findet ihr übrigens auch auf http://www.hm2k.com.Mich interessieren brennend weitere Argumente, also her damit GD Star Ratingloading… Kategorien: […]
While I agree with the premise of the article – that use of the “www.” should remain optional, and not be required one way OR the other, I wish people would learn the proper definitions and use of words. In other words, the proper word is “depreciate”, NOT deprecate. “Deprecate” and “depreciate” have completely different meanings, neither of which means “obsolete”:
deprecate: To express disapproval of; deplore.
depreciate: To lessen the price or value of. Or, to lower in estimation or esteem
obsolete: No longer in use, or no longer useful.
An example of their usage: As they feel it is obsolete, some people take it upon themselves to deprecate the continued use of the depreciated “www.” portion common in web site addresses.
dwg’s comment regarding the use of “deprecated” is unfortunate, as “deprecated” has in fact been used correctly in this case.
While dwg’s definitions are certainly correct for traditional English, when used with respect to computing (programming languages in particular) “deprecated” refers to an obsolete programming language which is still in use all the same.
A nice description appears here:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Deprecated
Languages evolve, and when a field rises as quickly as computing has it is only inevitable that new words (or meanings for existing words) are coined as a result.
“Root domains are aesthetically pleasing, but the nature of DNS prevents them from being a robust solution for web apps. Root domains don’t allow CNAMEs, which requires hardcoding IP addresses, which in turn prevents flexibility on updates to IPs which may need to change over time to handle new load or divert denial-of-service attacks.”
– http://status.heroku.com/incident/156
In fact companies like Cloudflare necessarily need the addresses of the domains point to your subdomain bearing the WWW service, this is because all content navigation passes for that subdomain is filtered by Cloudflare, thus being able to add some features to improve performance the Web site.
————-
De hecho empresas como Cloudflare necesitan forzosamente que las direcciones de los dominios que apuntemos a su servicio lleven el subdominio WWW, esto es porque todo el contenido de navegacion que pasa por dicho subdominio es filtrado por Cloudflare, pudiendo asi agregarle algunas caracteristicas para mejorar el rendimiento del dominio web.
You should considered the effect of using http://domain.com vs http://www.domain.com in the intranet world, since the proxy server is mostly used in this fashion.
inside the intranet, http://domain.com will yield to no access to the site because you are definitely inside that networt (domain.com) hence the qualified http://www.domain.com will get to the site with no problem. The other issue is most users are lazy to type in the URL, they go to google and search the domain. When they clicked the link, they are in the mercy of how Google canonicalize the web search engine.
The moral of this problem is to train the user the proper way of URL.
I can see the advantages of both, but the arguments for deprecating www seem to come down to two things; aesthetics and ease of use.
I’ve always pondered over which to use for me domains, and I’ve always found the decision difficult because there isn’t an authorities answer, but, I believe there should be.
My brother recently said to me “I didn’t realise you didn’t need to www!”. And there in lies the problem. Seem people ‘think’ you don’t need it, some people think you have to use www, and the more techy amongst us know you should be able to use both but that’s not always the case. So the fact of the matter is; It couldn’t ‘become’ confusing if www was deprecated because it already ‘is’ confusing.
All my previous sites work on both but redirect to www. My latest site I have done it the other way, but as the tld is a .me it looks odd when in print without the www, more confusion then.
This topic got me thinking more than I wanted to!
I was going to say; the answer is to keep www the standard, but make it compulsory for example.com to direct to http://www.example.com. That way everyone knows that ‘if’ we type www or not, we still get the same site.
Some argue that; www should stay because it’s logical. I can see some reasoning behind that; spot the odd one out.
mail.example.com
http://ftp.example.com
irc.example.com
http://www.example.com
http://www.example.com
I’m not the wiser however, and I still don’t know what to do. With a tld of .me, I feel it’s probably necessary to print the www. because people may not get it yet. Something else also, although youngsters find online activity second nature, I also recognise that the majority of users are more like my brother, in that they ‘think’ they know, when actually they don’t know the whole truth.
With that in mind, we have to accommodate all people online, and we do that by keeping www as a standard and redirect non-www.
My 2 pence.
My examples had http:// added to the list and only the last one should have had http://