Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)

[Ivan Zaigralin]

To clarify, I agree with you and Luke down below that www subdomain is nice 
and useful. It's only the tacit assumption that www.whatever.com = 
whatever.com that I find annoying :)

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 21:38:29 bill-auger wrote:
> 'www.' is indeed just a convention but it is not a "traditional" thing
> of the past that should go away - it's meaning is still as well defined
> and useful today as it ever was - sub-domains are very plainly a way to
> distinguish one machine or service from the various other services that
> may be offered under the base domain anme (which is often not associated
> with any server), and to allow each machine or service to have a it's
> own IP address (perhaps at different physical locations), while
> remaining semantically associated under the umbrella of the main domain name
> 
> in the case of the 'www.' sub-domain in 'http://www.foo.com', that
> clearly identifies the HTTP "World Wide Web" server of foo.com - as
> distinguished from it's FTP server ftp.foo.com, it's mail server
> smtp.foo.com, it's usenet server news.foo.com, and so on - some domains
> have only a web server and so there is no confusion if there is a 'www.'
> sub-domain or not; but to assume that as the default case is to assume
> that every client that asks for 'foo.com' should always get a World Wide
> Web server, which is to ignore the plethora of other services that can
> be offered under the same domain as well the possibility that foo.com
> may have no web server at all

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.