In purely personal opinion I wouldn't consider it 'broken'. There's so
much use for DNS these days that I've had several situations where it's
preferable to only register one or the other (
www.sitename.org and
sitename.org ) for the sake of your website, and intentionally leave the
other non-registered or pointing elsewhere. But really, it is just one
more DNS record that is best added to do both (www) and bare, so in most
situations it is desirable to do so. But, take Wordpress (I think it's
wordpress) for example, if you have both
www.example.org and
example.org
pointing to the same site, and someone is browsing a subsite of
'
example.org' and somehow click on a link that has a FQDN
www.example.org the site gets confused and thinks you're not logged in
anymore because the login cookie was for '
example.org'. So, to make
Wordpress work for that you have to have a re-write in your apache
rules. This is just one example of where it can be a minor issue and
sometimes just having one resolvable DNS name for your site saves some
work.
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 10:20 -0400, Brian Hoort wrote:
> I remember a time in the early nineties when "www." was practically
required
> on all URLs. E.g.
http://www.msu.edu, not
http://msu.edu. These
days
> sites almost universally work with or without it. I notice that the
MSU
> home page works both ways, as does my college and department sites,
and all
> corporate sites I can think of. Interestingly the MSU Library still
> requires this.
http://lib.msu.edu does not work.
>
> In general, what is the feeling out there on this? From a usability
> standpoint, do you think this is just webmaster preference, or is this
> considered "broken" these days?
>
> Brian Hoort
> Computer Service
> Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics
> Michigan State University
> 517-355-4701
> Email:
[log in to unmask]
> Skype: brian_hoort
--
Joseph M. Deming
System Administrator
MATRIX/History
415 Nat Sci Bldg
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 884-2472
[log in to unmask]