641–650 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically there's no reason why a TLD can't have an A record. If they own "google." they can point it to whatever address and serve whatever they want.
Until recently, http://ai did exactly this. They also had MX records, so n@ai was a valid email address.
> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…
> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it matters, quite a bit actually. My expectation as a user is that the URL I see in the bar is the URL of the site I'm visiting. If it's not accurate, then why show it at all?
Because the second level domain is far more important than the subdomain. The second level. www.example.com and example.com usually have the same contents, but are always controlled by the same group.
Considering a subdomain "trivial" is ridiculous... there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com". Not only can they serve different sites, they can even have different DNS records! It seems that "m." is also considered a trivial subdomain. So when a user clicks a link to a "m.facebook.com" uri, they'll be confused why FB looks different when the browser reports it's on "facebook.com". I sincerely h…
Oh come on. "www." was used as a way of delineating what was a web address. Hence the fashion of putting that there so people knew you had to do it in the browser. Before then people used to also put the " http://" on there, and the combination of the two on vehicles/signs was ridiculous. We're now in a web world. People know what a URL is. "domain.com" isn't ambiguous, it's obvious to man, beast or child that you ty…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com" Can you link to a site where these two are different?
From one of the comments there: http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server.
