- From: Ian King <iking@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:06:14 -0700
- To: "Larry Masinter" <lmnet@attglobal.net>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Linda Bellitt (by way of Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>)" <linda.bellitt@hunterdouglas.com>, <uri@w3.org>
Agreed, it's a useful convention, as one can infer from minimal information the type of service that's likely to be available. For example (and in the spirit of 2219), if I'm looking for a DNS "authority" for a given domain, I often seek ns[1].foo.com. In your mail, Larry, Outlook displays a working HTTP hyperlink for www.realbeer.com but not for realbeer.com. However, what I DON'T like about it is the onomotopoiea of "double-u double-u double-u"... <g> -- Ian -----Original Message----- From: Larry Masinter [mailto:lmnet@attglobal.net] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:54 PM To: Ian King; Aaron Swartz; Linda Bellitt (by way of Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>); uri@w3.org Subject: RE: Proper www usage > One could think of the "www" node in the same way mail servers are > often named "mail.foo.com", nameservers are "dns.foo.com", etc. It's > a convention that got started some time back, but it has no formal > basis or meaning. But RFC 2219 "Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services" is a Best Current Practice and gives several reasons why distinguishing between www.realbeer.com and realbeer.com might be a good idea. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 19:39:02 UTC