Why is WWW necessary in some URLs?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Nehmo Sergheyev, Dec 31, 2003.

  1. Nehmo Sergheyev, Dec 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes
    > it's not?


    It has nothing to do with the browser or even HTML - it's just how the
    server the site is stored on is configured. I always configure mine to
    respond to requests for URLs without the "www".

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
    Andrew Cameron, Dec 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes it's
    > not?


    www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to do
    with the site, not your browser.
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 31, 2003
    #3
  4. Nehmo Sergheyev

    brucie Guest

    brucie, Dec 31, 2003
    #4
  5. Nehmo Sergheyev

    Richard Guest

    Leif K-Brooks wrote:

    > Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    >> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes it's
    >> not?


    > www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to do
    > with the site, not your browser.


    Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!
    Richard, Jan 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Nehmo Sergheyev

    Richard Guest

    Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

    > How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes it's
    > not? This is an example. The first link doesn't work but the second
    > does.
    > http://packet8.net/
    > http://www.packet8.net/


    > But with other URLs, the WWW doesn't seem to be needed.


    > http://enterprisenetworksandservers.com/
    > http://www.enterprisenetworksandservers.com/


    > I'm using IE6


    It was originally required that all web sites use the "WWW" prefix
    regardless.
    Then Microsoft introduced into IE a way that you didn't need to include it
    every time.
    From there, server software evolved to totally disregard if desired.
    If you use IE 4, yep, you'll need to include it.
    I think.



    > --
    > *********************
    > * Nehmo Sergheyev *
    > *********************
    Richard, Jan 1, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <>, anonymous@127.000 says...
    > Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >
    > > Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > >> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes it's
    > >> not?

    >
    > > www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to do
    > > with the site, not your browser.

    >
    > Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!


    The thing is, he's correct, though "HTTP server configuration" may have
    been better than "site". The "www." in "www.hyweljenkins.co.uk" has the
    same context as "demo." in "demo.hyweljenkins.co.uk".

    What's your take on the OP's question?

    --
    Hywel I do not eat quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 1, 2004
    #7
  8. Richard wrote:
    >> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to do
    >> with the site, not your browser.

    >
    > Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!


    s/that man/Richard
    Leif K-Brooks, Jan 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Nehmo Sergheyev

    somebody Guest

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:

    > Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >
    > > Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > >> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes it's
    > >> not?

    >
    > > www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to do
    > > with the site, not your browser.

    >
    > Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!


    Erm, that's my understanding of it...

    It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.
    somebody, Jan 1, 2004
    #9
  10. Nehmo Sergheyev

    Richard Guest

    somebody wrote:

    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:


    >> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >>
    > >> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > >>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes
    > >>> it's not?

    >>
    > >> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to
    > >> do with the site, not your browser.

    >>
    >> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!


    > Erm, that's my understanding of it...


    > It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.


    The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.
    It was required by ICANN and other authorities.
    Richard, Jan 1, 2004
    #10
  11. Nehmo Sergheyev

    somebody Guest

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:11:42 -0600, Richard wrote:

    > somebody wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:

    >
    > >> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > >>
    > > >> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > > >>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes
    > > >>> it's not?
    > >>
    > > >> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to
    > > >> do with the site, not your browser.
    > >>
    > >> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!

    >
    > > Erm, that's my understanding of it...

    >
    > > It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.

    >
    > The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.
    > It was required by ICANN and other authorities.


    I don't know what you mean by "not a subdomain of anything". Unless
    there's a DNS entry for www.domain, it won't resolve, and you won't be
    able to get to it.
    somebody, Jan 1, 2004
    #11
  12. Hywel Jenkins wrote:

    > The thing is, he's correct, though "HTTP server configuration" may have
    > been better than "site".


    Even better: DNS configuration. HTTP server configuration only comes into
    play in some cases.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
    Toby A Inkster, Jan 1, 2004
    #12
  13. Toby A Inkster, Jan 1, 2004
    #13
  14. Nehmo Sergheyev

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:20:31 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
    wrote:

    >It was originally required that all web sites use the "WWW" prefix
    >regardless.


    No you dipstick, it was a convention that people did this because
    admins who ran "real" applications over the 'net (like email) didn't
    want these upstart web people getting out of their playpens. www. is
    just a convenience for DNS, so web traffic could easily be routed
    separately, even back in the days before port-based routing was
    commonplace.

    There has _never_ been a browser (counterexamples welcome) that had a
    problem resolving sites without the www. However (AFAIR) some IE
    mutants did have a habit of assuming it at one time.

    The only reason to use it these days is that a URL printed on a
    billboard is sometimes a little long for easy reading.
    http://foobar.com or www.foobar.com are both obviously "web site
    addresses", but "foobar.com" alone doesn't have quite the same brand
    recognition to Joe Punter.

    --
    Klein bottle for rent. Apply within.
    Andy Dingley, Jan 1, 2004
    #14
  15. Nehmo Sergheyev

    SeeSchloss Guest

    Le 01/01/2004, Richard a écrit cet amas de lettres dans le
    message <> :
    > somebody wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:

    >
    >>> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >>>
    >> >> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    >> >>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and

    >> sometimes >>> it's not?
    >>>
    >> >> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com.

    >> It has to >> do with the site, not your browser.
    >>>
    >>> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!

    >
    >> Erm, that's my understanding of it...

    >
    >> It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.

    >
    > The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.
    > It was required by ICANN and other authorities.


    Please could you refrain yourself from posting when you
    don't have the slightest idea of what you're saying ?

    --
    SeeSchloß
    SeeSchloss, Jan 1, 2004
    #15
  16. SeeSchloss wrote:
    > Le 01/01/2004, Richard a écrit cet amas de lettres dans le
    > message <> :
    >> somebody wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >>>>
    >>> >> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    >>> >>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and
    >>> sometimes >>> it's not?
    >>>>
    >>> >> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com.
    >>> It has to >> do with the site, not your browser.
    >>>>
    >>>> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!

    >>
    >>> Erm, that's my understanding of it...

    >>
    >>> It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.

    >>
    >> The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.
    >> It was required by ICANN and other authorities.

    >
    > Please could you refrain yourself from posting when you
    > don't have the slightest idea of what you're saying ?


    /shocked

    What you are suggesting would be a break from one of the oldest traditions
    of usenet. It's part of the culture godamit.

    --
    William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
    William Tasso, Jan 1, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>, anonymous@127.000 says...
    > somebody wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:

    >
    > >> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > >>
    > > >> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > > >>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes
    > > >>> it's not?
    > >>
    > > >> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has to
    > > >> do with the site, not your browser.
    > >>
    > >> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!

    >
    > > Erm, that's my understanding of it...

    >
    > > It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.

    >
    > The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.


    IN this URI, "www.hyweljenkins.com", "www" is a subdomain of the
    "hyweljenkins.com" domain. It is just the case that my host has
    configured both *different* URIs to point at the same root directory.


    > It was required by ICANN and other authorities.


    Oh just STFU. You whinge when people shoot you down, then you continue
    to talk crap. You really are an idiot.

    --
    Hywel I do not eat quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 1, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <>, anonymous@127.000 says...
    > Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    >
    > > How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and sometimes it's
    > > not? This is an example. The first link doesn't work but the second
    > > does.
    > > http://packet8.net/
    > > http://www.packet8.net/

    >
    > > But with other URLs, the WWW doesn't seem to be needed.

    >
    > > http://enterprisenetworksandservers.com/
    > > http://www.enterprisenetworksandservers.com/

    >
    > > I'm using IE6


    > If you use IE 4, yep, you'll need to include it.


    Rubbish.


    > I think.


    Liar.

    --
    Hywel I do not eat quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
    Hywel Jenkins, Jan 1, 2004
    #18
  19. Nehmo Sergheyev

    Richard Guest

    somebody wrote:

    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:11:42 -0600, Richard wrote:


    >> somebody wrote:
    >>
    > >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:

    >>
    > >>> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > >>>
    > > >>> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > > >>>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and
    > > >>>> sometimes it's not?
    > >>>
    > > >>> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has
    > > >>> to do with the site, not your browser.
    > >>>
    > >>> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!

    >>
    > >> Erm, that's my understanding of it...

    >>
    > >> It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.

    >>
    >> The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.
    >> It was required by ICANN and other authorities.


    > I don't know what you mean by "not a subdomain of anything". Unless
    > there's a DNS entry for www.domain, it won't resolve, and you won't be
    > able to get to it.


    www.subdomain.domain.com http://subdomain.domain.com

    Now that is a subdomain. A subdomain means you can put files into it and it
    acts like any directory.
    www.domain.com/subdomain/
    resolves to the same thing as above technically speaking.
    but can be something else depending on the software setup.
    Or, the host can setup a redirect page letting you know not to come in this
    way.

    "www" is not a subdomain of any domain name.
    Richard, Jan 1, 2004
    #19
  20. Nehmo Sergheyev

    somebody Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:55:20 -0600, Richard wrote:

    > somebody wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:11:42 -0600, Richard wrote:

    >
    > >> somebody wrote:
    > >>
    > > >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0600, Richard wrote:
    > >>
    > > >>> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > > >>>
    > > > >>> Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:
    > > > >>>> How come sometimes it's necessary to use WWW in a URL and
    > > > >>>> sometimes it's not?
    > > >>>
    > > > >>> www. is just a subdomain, similar to foobar.somewhere.com. It has
    > > > >>> to do with the site, not your browser.
    > > >>>
    > > >>> Give that man a ceegar for the best bullshit of the day!
    > >>
    > > >> Erm, that's my understanding of it...
    > >>
    > > >> It's DNS, has jack all to do with the browser.
    > >>
    > >> The "www" is not a subdomain of anything.
    > >> It was required by ICANN and other authorities.

    >
    > > I don't know what you mean by "not a subdomain of anything". Unless
    > > there's a DNS entry for www.domain, it won't resolve, and you won't be
    > > able to get to it.

    >
    > www.subdomain.domain.com http://subdomain.domain.com
    >
    > Now that is a subdomain. A subdomain means you can put files into it and it
    > acts like any directory.
    > www.domain.com/subdomain/


    WTF?

    > resolves to the same thing as above technically speaking.
    > but can be something else depending on the software setup.
    > Or, the host can setup a redirect page letting you know not to come in this
    > way.
    >
    > "www" is not a subdomain of any domain name.


    http://tinyurl.com/ywf8o

    Or maybe you need this:

    http://tinyurl.com/36j7d
    somebody, Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John A Grandy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    302
    John A Grandy
    Sep 29, 2005
  2. Kaidi
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    454
    Andrew Thompson
    Jan 4, 2004
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,744
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. Nathan Sokalski

    Converting Relative URLs into Absolute URLs

    Nathan Sokalski, Aug 11, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    731
    Sriram Srivatsan
    Aug 12, 2008
  5. Adam Monsen

    JDBC URLs ...not really URLs?

    Adam Monsen, Feb 6, 2009, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    6,116
    Adam Monsen
    Feb 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page