Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
I didn't suggest that subdomains should be removed, just that there is
no need for one for your primary site.
It might be tempting to think this if your main focus is web
development. What you are saying might even make sense in a few cases,
but it is generally a bad idea.
Why should a company organize their whole domain around one
protocol/service (http/web)? What if they have a well established
domain set up in SLC with several offices and domain controllers
physically located there. If they want to leave the www (or any other
name) off of the FQDN then they don't have the flexibility to move the
web site to a host in Provo or LA if they wanted to.
Why should anyone assume what the host name is that serves a web site?
We don't make that assumption about other services. Sure, it might be
easier for the user to remember without the www, but at this point I
have observed that most users *expect* the www. Having a host that
serves up the public web site named by convention rather then rules
gives the best of both worlds - predictability and flexibility.
Besides, most browsers will check for the www when a site can't be
contacted anyway.
mail.example.com is great for a web email client
I also like SMTP.example and IMAPS.example. Thank goodness I have a choice.
ftp.example.com is great for file access
SFTP.example sounds better to me :)
After all is said and done, it's a good that things are just as they
are. And so you don't think that I don't understand where you are
coming from, my web site happens to be http://gundy.org But don't
worry, http://www.gundy.org will get you there also :)
Gabe
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
