damon2003
10-20-2009, 11:16 AM
Can anyone explain? The sites that require www will not resolve if you don't add it. Most sites seem to allow you to optionallly use it.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Why do some site require "www" at the front of the domain and some don't
svidgen
10-20-2009, 03:07 PM
The resolution of the www host/subdomain is not automatic or necessarily configured by default when a domain name is registered and pointed at an IP address. A DNS record must be added "manually" to resolve hosts/subdomains. The www host/subdomain is typically added manually, or may be auto-added by some DNS management software, as an alias to the primary domain.
However, as I understand it, there is nothing inherent to the DNS system that will point any subdomain to the primary domain without a manually created entry.
Additionally, the web server often needs some configuration to respond properly to the various host/subdomain requests that could come in, and in some cases, apache is/can be configured to ignore requests for domains and subdomains/hosts that are not explicitly allowed.
That all makes sense in my head ... does it make sense in text?
However, as I understand it, there is nothing inherent to the DNS system that will point any subdomain to the primary domain without a manually created entry.
Additionally, the web server often needs some configuration to respond properly to the various host/subdomain requests that could come in, and in some cases, apache is/can be configured to ignore requests for domains and subdomains/hosts that are not explicitly allowed.
That all makes sense in my head ... does it make sense in text?
thedancer
11-06-2009, 08:04 AM
That seems like a good explaination to me.
What do you think about people putting 301 redirects on the non www. address to redirect to the www. version?
A lot of SEO companies seem to recomend it but I don't beleive it makes any difference.
What do you think about people putting 301 redirects on the non www. address to redirect to the www. version?
A lot of SEO companies seem to recomend it but I don't beleive it makes any difference.
svidgen
11-06-2009, 09:52 AM
A lot of SEO companies seem to recomend it but I don't beleive it makes any difference.
I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind that. The recommendation I've always heard is to avoid redirects, if possible. From what I understand, they create latency for visitors and stop some web crawlers dead in their tracks (not necessarily a bad thing).
Were you given any reason why one should implement that redirect?
I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind that. The recommendation I've always heard is to avoid redirects, if possible. From what I understand, they create latency for visitors and stop some web crawlers dead in their tracks (not necessarily a bad thing).
Were you given any reason why one should implement that redirect?
criterion9
11-06-2009, 10:08 AM
I was reading up on a similar topic a few months ago and there is a movement to abolish the www prefix altogether since it seems redundant.
http://no-www.org/
On the flip side there are working groups for the opposite as well:
http://www.yes-www.org/
http://no-www.org/
On the flip side there are working groups for the opposite as well:
http://www.yes-www.org/
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.