Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: 14 sites that require "www" in their URLs

  • Subject: Re: 14 sites that require "www" in their URLs
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:05:17 +0100
  • Newsgroups: alt.www.webmaster
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1147062399.025736.114640@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <445edf44$0$647$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Gordon Hudson ] on Monday 08 May 2006 07:03 \__

> <xx-google@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1147062399.025736.114640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Below are 14 sites, each of which is apparently
>> only accessible via the "www" version of its URL.
>> The left-hand version doesn't work for me, and the
>> right-hand version does work for me.  I expect
>> that you would get the same results.

One of my sites *still* falls under this category (since 2001). I suspect
that its (terrible) Web host does not even give the option for that 'www'
umbilical cord to be cut.

>> Some of these are major sites, and it puzzles me
>> that their webmasters haven't tweaked things so
>> that the shorter left-hand URL will work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that some time in the past (maybe 5+
years ago) Yahoo was among these sites...

>> Why might a webmaster not have enabled the
>> shorter (that is, non-"www") version of the URL?
> Its correct.
> Maybe I am too old but we used to have different machines for different
> purposes.
> mail.domain.com was the mail server.
> www.domain.com was the web server.
> ftp.domain.com was the FTP server and was used for more than uploading web
> pages.
> mymachine.domain.com might be the machine on my desk or one of the hundreds
> of others in the building (in those days it tended to be real routeable IP
> addresses, no NAT, even if you were behind a firewall).
> In other words the domain name was simply that, the domain used to name the
> network and everyone had subdomains from that.
> Its only in the times of ecommerce that people have started making the
> domain name resolve to a web site.
> Its not wrong to do it but its not particularly correct either.

I wonder how this can be resolved, if it all. I am assuming that only the
host can deal with the matter...

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com  |  SuSE GNU/Linux   ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  4:00pm  up 10 days 22:57,  9 users,  load average: 1.84, 1.22, 1.01
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index