[thelist] http://no-www.org/ am I missing the point?

[Carl Meyer]

hi Michael,

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Michael Pemberton wrote:
> Am I the only one who thinks that the guys over at http://no-www.org/ 
> have leaped a few links in the logic chain?
> 
> Based on a "definition of WWW", they have come to the conclusion that 
> all domains should drop the www from the start of their domains.

Actually, I think they have a point.  I wouldn't take it as far as they do
(redirecting from http://www.example.com to http://example.com for
'political reasons' is a bit silly), but I highly recommend making sure that
http://example.com at least gets a user to your site.  I know many people
(including me) who habitually drop the www. when recalling a URL they've
seen somewhere, and I'm always annoyed when I run into the (rare) site that
fails to make that work (if I'm in a hurry I might even conclude the site
doesn't exist and move on without trying the www. version).

In sum, I think it's just fine to keep calling your web server
www.example.com, just as your mail server is mail.example.com.  But in the
same way you don't require people to send mail to user at mail.example.com,
don't require them to browse to http://www.example.com.

my .02

Carl