Reply to post: Re: www?

Omni(box)shambles? Google takes aim at worldwide web yet again

JohnFen

Re: www?

"By convention, www has always pointed to the host that serves the main website for a domain."

I remember when web sites first started coming into existence, and even then prepending the "www." was idiotic. There's no need for a special domain because there's already a special port. Many efforts have been made to get websites to stop doing that -- which is why so many will now respond to both "www.example.com" and "example.com".

We do need to just get everyone to stop using "www." for this purpose, but regardless of common usage, it remains a fact that "www.example.com" and "example.com" are two different URLs that don't necessarily resolve to the same web site. Hiding the "www" is a terrible UI decision because it means that the browser is lying to you by reporting you're at one URL when you're actually using a different one. Aside from increasing confusion, this can also be leveraged to engage in attacks.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon