[mb-users] Website urls: to www. or not

[Mark Trolley]

On 5/10/07, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/10/07, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Recently, some editors have been editing existing urls (official
> > sites, etc) as to remove the www. part of the site addresses.
> > As far as I can tell, the only argument used to do that was that "it
> > is shorter".
> >
> > While I have absolutely no opinion if or not "the shorter the better",
> > I'm strongly opposed to this trend.
> >
> > It seems that the editors doing that have little understanding about
> > the DNS system, web server configuration, domain aliasing, browsers
> > behavior, or the intarweb at large: this of course is not a defect on
> > their part! Not everybody has to be a geek ;)
> >
> > Now, without going into a boringly long technical explanation, may I
> > ask people *not to* remove the "www." part from existing urls?
> > This is just bad, is likely to break things, and really has no benefit.
>
> Somewhat on topic is whether or not to include the ending "/" on some
> domains.  For example "http://www.metallica.com/" in contrast to
> "http://www.metallica.com".  Personally, I have been omitting this
> slash whenever I add domains.  Are we wanting consistency there as
> well?
>
> -Aaron




The trailing slash doesn't matter, but he's right saying the www. does. It's
not just for "consistency", it's for technical reasons (it's entirely
possible for a poorly configured DNS server to provide different IP
addresses for www.foo.com and foo.com).

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20070510/9006f075/attachment.htm