- From: dolphinling <dolphinling@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:11:13 -0400
dolphinling wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Anne van Kesteren (fora) wrote: >> >>> Currently the WHATWG site is accessible in two ways, with or without the >>> 'www' prefix. There are easy ways to solve this "problem": >>> >>> <http://no-www.org/> >>> >>> Please do. Thanks, >> >> >> >> I disagree that it is a "problem". >> > > Not a problem, but not necessary either. > >> The URI: >> >> http://whatwg.org/ >> >> ...looks silly compared to: >> >> http://www.whatwg.org/ >> >> ...IMHO. >> > > Personally, I like the first one. Obviously that's a matter of opinion, > but www. seems to be just extra stuff that doesn't need to be there > (this is especially true for any domains that start with w, I think). I > think it has to do with what you're used to. > > Slashdot (to name a major example) doesn't use a subdomain. Most pages > (because of Apache default configuration) don't care. > >> Anyway, the host name _is_ relevant: >> >> www.whatwg.org -- content whose relevance is the WWW >> syntax.whatwg.org -- content whose relevance is the Syntax >> >> ...etc. >> > > This would be true if and only if www.whatwg.org were different from > whatwg.org . With them the same, you're saying the domain's main focus > is stuff related to the WWW (which it is) and therefore you don't need a > www subdomain. > >> And in any case Dreamhost (who are currently hosting the whatwg.org >> servers) don't support having www.example.org and example.org pointing at >> different virtual domains. >> > > They don't need to, you just need to redirect www.whatwg.org/* to > whatwg.org/* . >
Received on Sunday, 18 July 2004 19:11:13 UTC