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

[Michael Pemberton]

Carl Meyer wrote:

> 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.

The mail connection that they made was actually the most disturbing for 
me.  They have taken a "logical" URL/URI argument based on the http 
protocol and confused it with email addresses.

They make their claim that, as browsers assume the address to be http, 
email systems must already mbe making this assumption.  Even this is 
flawed.  If you specify a port other than 80, IE gets confused and won't 
assume that the server is an http server.

The www argument is one of redundancy and allowing for multiple 
variations.  The email equivilant would be to remove everything before 
the @ and assume that all email is "email" and there for handled by a 
single system.

Subdomains are used to tell server apart, just as usernames tell email 
user apart.
---
Michael Pemberton
evolt at mpember.net.au