Noob question of the day about www

[Ghost]

I understand www stands for world wide web.

Every now and then I stumble across a web site that doesn't have www in it's address. What's the significance of that?

I don't remember the site I hit yesterday, but it's format was http://example.com not http://www.example.com

Anyone care to explain?

 

[DanJ]

the www. part is optional. http://anandtech.com is the same as http://www.anandtech.com

Though something like http://forums.anandtech.com cannot have the www... see: http://www.forums.anandtech.com

 

[Confused]

The important bit is the url.extension

The www. or forums. bit at the beginning is to tell it which server, at domain anandtech.com to go to.

So, www.anandtech.com will be the main web page, forums.anandtech.com will be the forums, subscriber.anandtech.com will be the subscriber forums server


Confused

 

[Beattie]

Ok, so like com is your root domain. under that, you can own like example.com which means you own anything under "example" which is under "com" but not anything under "example" that's under "net" for example. (no pun intended)

Now, since you own "example.com" you can put any subdomain you want under that. So, most people do a www for web stuff, or ftp for ftp stuff, or whatever they want. (i.e. forums on anandtech.com) Some sites dont bother with the www subdomain. some make it so there is pointers between the www and the root of thier domain.

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by: DanJ
the www. part is optional. http://anandtech.com is the same as http://www.anandtech.com

Though something like http://forums.anandtech.com cannot have the www... see: http://www.forums.anandtech.com

I didn't realize it was optional. I just tried going to my website and didn't include the www and it pulled it up.

Interesting.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Ghost
Every now and then I stumble across a web site that doesn't have www in it's address. What's the significance of that?

It's a DNS configuration thing. DNS (domain name service) correlates domain names to IP addresses. You have to point domain names (and SUB domain names) to IPs to get them to work.

I order for both <DOMAIN>.com and www.<DOMAIN>.com to work, they both have to be pointed to the domain's web server's IP address.

If one is missing, that one won't work.

 

[alkemyst]

www. is not necessarily optional and if included may cause problems as well.

In the beginning www. was always included, it was soon discovered as redundant and unnecessary....plus had the added benefit of being replaced with something more identifying (forum, talk, info, america, whatever).

Many providers automatically assign www.domain and domain only to the same resolution.

&Aring;

 

[AMCRambler]

Ok url geniuses, riddle me this: Why is the www at the beginning then? The way it's arranged now, the url has to be parsed from right to left. Then the rest of the path from left to right? WTF? I'm thinking it really should have been anandtech.com.www/index.html. That way the browser knows the domain, then once it gets to the domain, the web server, and then the path if there is any. Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Ok url geniuses, riddle me this: Why is the www at the beginning then? The way it's arranged now, the url has to be parsed from right to left. Then the rest of the path from left to right? WTF? I'm thinking it really should have been anandtech.com.www/index.html. That way the browser knows the domain, then once it gets to the domain, the web server, and then the path if there is any. Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

Don't you mean com.anandtech.www/index.html?

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Ok url geniuses, riddle me this: Why is the www at the beginning then? The way it's arranged now, the url has to be parsed from right to left. Then the rest of the path from left to right? WTF? I'm thinking it really should have been anandtech.com.www/index.html. That way the browser knows the domain, then once it gets to the domain, the web server, and then the path if there is any. Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

You make no sense

 

www. is a pointer.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Ok url geniuses, riddle me this: Why is the www at the beginning then? The way it's arranged now, the url has to be parsed from right to left. Then the rest of the path from left to right? WTF? I'm thinking it really should have been anandtech.com.www/index.html. That way the browser knows the domain, then once it gets to the domain, the web server, and then the path if there is any. Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

hmmm in the beginning I don't think other than having www. was really thought out.

You realize you can analyze IP addresses now and say what idiot decided only having that few unique addresses to run the whole world off of.

&Aring;

 

[AMCRambler]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Ok url geniuses, riddle me this: Why is the www at the beginning then? The way it's arranged now, the url has to be parsed from right to left. Then the rest of the path from left to right? WTF? I'm thinking it really should have been anandtech.com.www/index.html. That way the browser knows the domain, then once it gets to the domain, the web server, and then the path if there is any. Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

You make no sense

Don't hurt yourself trying to follow my logic then.

 

Originally posted by: AMCRambler

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Ok url geniuses, riddle me this: Why is the www at the beginning then? The way it's arranged now, the url has to be parsed from right to left. Then the rest of the path from left to right? WTF? I'm thinking it really should have been anandtech.com.www/index.html. That way the browser knows the domain, then once it gets to the domain, the web server, and then the path if there is any. Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

You make no sense

Don't hurt yourself trying to follow my logic then.

You go petition the IITF to change the TCP/IP suite.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

Well, you didn't code it

I think it's more intuitive. When you write your address you don't write:
USA
PA, Philadelphia
312 Broad Street
Your Name

Not that there is any technical reason it couldn't be that way, it just has been for over many years, and this way corresponds to that.

Also, multiple subdomains would be more confusing.

 

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

Well, you didn't code it

I think it's more intuitive. When you write your address you don't write:
USA
PA, Philadelphia
312 Broad Street
Your Name

Not that there is any technical reason it couldn't be that way, it just has been for over many years, and this way corresponds to that.

Also, multiple subdomains would be more confusing.

Also, why would you make the human work harder? The machine is the one who should be doing the work.

 

[TheToOTaLL]

Just another A record. Some web hosts have an extra one to cover both bases, some don't.

Personally I think it'd dumb of a web host not to have both.

 

[AMCRambler]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Seems like if I was coding it, that's how I'd do it.

Well, you didn't code it

I think it's more intuitive. When you write your address you don't write:
USA
PA, Philadelphia
312 Broad Street
Your Name

Not that there is any technical reason it couldn't be that way, it just has been for over many years, and this way corresponds to that.

Also, multiple subdomains would be more confusing.

Also, why would you make the human work harder? The machine is the one who should be doing the work.

I honestly don't see how it's harder or more intuitive coidng it the way I suggested. You think it's harder because you've been typing www. ever since you've started using the web. I think Alkemyst is closer to the right answer than either of you. When the internet first started, there was only www., no forums., or mail. So when these were added they didn't change the format to make it make sense, they kept it the same to stay consistant. There's nothing easier about having the www. at the beginning or the end of the domain. I'm just thinking in terms of paths. You wouldn't have a path of windows\c:\system32\config would you?

 

[Jzero]

I honestly don't see how it's harder or more intuitive coidng it the way I suggested. You think it's harder because you've been typing www. ever since you've started using the web.

See my example with the mailing address.
It's not *technically* harder or less intuitive, it's simply that address have been written General->Specific for over 200 years.

I think Alkemyst is closer to the right answer than either of you. When the internet first started, there was only www., no forums., or mail.

The Internet did not begin as the www. The naming convention was not designed to designate a service. In fact, that's why protocols were defined and the <protocol>:// convention was developed. Not to mention, a server can have multiple services.

The naming system is only to provide a hierarchical way to reference IP addresses. It could have been general->specific or the other way around. They simply chose general->specific.

 

[AMCRambler]

Originally posted by: Jzero

I honestly don't see how it's harder or more intuitive coidng it the way I suggested. You think it's harder because you've been typing www. ever since you've started using the web.

See my example with the mailing address.
It's not *technically* harder or less intuitive, it's simply that address have been written General->Specific for over 200 years.

I think Alkemyst is closer to the right answer than either of you. When the internet first started, there was only www., no forums., or mail.

The Internet did not begin as the www. The naming convention was not designed to designate a service. In fact, that's why protocols were defined and the <protocol>:// convention was developed. Not to mention, a server can have multiple services.

The naming system is only to provide a hierarchical way to reference IP addresses. It could have been general->specific or the other way around. They simply chose general->specific.

Don't you mean specific->general? Specific being the house number and street address? General being the city, state and zip? I think you're confused, lol.

 

[Jzero]

Don't you mean specific->general? Specific being the house number and street address? General being the city, state and zip? I think you're confused, lol.

Yep I got them backwards. Are you going to respond for real?

 

[AMCRambler]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Don't you mean specific->general? Specific being the house number and street address? General being the city, state and zip? I think you're confused, lol.

Yep I got them backwards. Are you going to respond for real?

Yes, wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying, cause you weren't saying it right. It would make sense if it were being specific to general or general to specific, but halfway through it seems like they go from specific->general to general->specific. I look at that first part as being type of server, and then the servers domain name. That's cool, I can buy that. But then the remainder of the link, the path if you will, goes general to specific. It starts at the top most folder in the and web servers root goes down through the subsequent sub directories to the file. Thats where my confusion arises from. See where I'm coming from yet?

Edit: This is a good argument, lol. I'm going to lunch. Check your response when I get back.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler

Originally posted by: Jzero

Don't you mean specific->general? Specific being the house number and street address? General being the city, state and zip? I think you're confused, lol.

Yep I got them backwards. Are you going to respond for real?

Yes, wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying, cause you weren't saying it right. It would make sense if it were being specific to general or general to specific, but halfway through it seems like they go from specific->general to general->specific. I look at that first part as being type of server, and then the servers domain name. That's cool, I can buy that. But then the remainder of the link, the path if you will, goes general to specific. It starts at the top most folder in the and web servers root goes down through the subsequent sub directories to the file. Thats where my confusion arises from. See where I'm coming from yet?

Sure, that makes sense. I guess you're supposed to think of the name of the resource as a single unit. So it's
//Resource/Drive/Path/File

the name of the resource is arbitrary. When parsing the line, you don't "search" for the resource the same way you would search for a file. There's no directory where you would locate com followed by google followed by www. The name www.google.com simply resolves to specific IP address and you search in that resource for the specific path.

com.google.www would work just as well as www.google.com, though; it just ended up the way it is

 

[trek]

http://www.computing.bcit.ca/
http://computing.bcit.ca/
How come the only one that works is the one with the www? What did they have to do to make it work like that?

 

[NogginBoink]

Wow, there's lots of misinformation in this thread!

When you type www.somedomain.com, your computer has to look up the IP address of that machine. It's looking up the IP address (generalized) for a machine named "www" in the domain "somedomain.com."

As long as the owners of somedomain.com have put a DNS entry in DNS for machine www, your computer will find that website.

Now, the thing about DNS is, the domain name itself can have an A record. So a separate DNS entry can resolve "somedomain.com" (without the www) to an IP address.

And they can point both "www" and "somedomain.com" to the same IP address.

Which is what many (most?) domains do. I've done that on the domains that I own.

So "www" is not optional. www.somedomain.com and somedomain.com are entirely different DNS queries. It's up to the owner of the DNS zone to point them both to the same place if they wand you to be able to omit the www and still get to the webserver.