For some fucking reason I hate it when people put 'www.' in front of any domain.

It takes longer to type the fucking thing out! And with short domains like the Dutch site nu.nl... www.nu.nl. fucking REALLY?!

Fuck the www subdomain, because that's all what that cocksucker is, a fucking subdomain.

For some fucking reason I never did. Maybe I'm just too avant-garde :0

Also, working at a help desk, sometimes people who talk really slow call in about issues with their domain.

M: may I ask for your domain?
C (talking extremely slowly): sure! That's:
C: w..
C: w...
C: w.....
M: *motherfucker I could've gotten myself a new fucking coffee in this time*

@Alice @CoffeeNcode Yeah, just wanted to put it differently this time because I had multiple instances of my comment today and I saw multiple domains pass by which were short as fuck with the fucking www in front.

Just needed to get that the fuck out again as it makes my fucking blood boil.

Also I wanted to put emphasis on how fucking stupid it is when very short domains do this. I didn't do that last time I think.

Along www, i find extremely unnecessary to have // after protocol.

Just / would be enough...

@illegaldisease Well it's to differentiate with standard paths

@TheOct0 we use https:// already.

It is differentiating enough to use https:/

@Alice That's the thing, they all do it nearly 😥

@CoffeeNcode right 😅

There are actually use cases for address with and without www. As an example, I'm currently working on a web app and it will be available on MyDomain.Online. But that is only the web app itself. The associated public website will be on www.MyDomain.Online.

Personally I hate the www too, but because of its vestigial nature I can forgive it. What I can't forgive though is not supporting it without the www. Not cool man, not cool. @CoffeeNcode

@CodeMasterAlex That's unpractical as shit

@devios1 I'm going to set that up for all my domains soon although most aren't accessible through non www anyways.

@jAsE Dear gods

@linuxxx Just have one redirect to the other, I don't even care which.

I have seen sites where www. would work but without it not. xD setting dns settings must be hard for some people.

Forget www, I also type https:// manually

@Solstice choose: www or no www?

@Linuxxx my bot disagrees with you

@Solstice 😡

@TheOct0 😭

@Alice It makes me feel like I'm less dependent on automation 😂😂

It could be useful in some cases:
For exemple, the french railway society (SNCF) have their own domain extension (it makes things like oui.sncf).
If they put this website on an advertissement, if they just write "oui.sncf" people won't understand what is it. But with the www subdomain (www.oui.sncf) people will know that it's a website

@enzop If the website itself isn't on a strike when you try to access it

EDIT: tu veux une suggestion pour ton site en bêta? Finis cette foutue liste :P

@TheOct0 😂😂😂

Fais pas attention, la dernière fois que j'ai travaillé sur mon site, la SNCF n'était pas en greve

@enzop Houlà, ça doit au moins remonter à avant 2000 :0

Tu l'as codé du début à la fin, ou tu as utilisé un framework (ou un CMS)?

@TheOct0 j'ai utilisé materialize.css pour le site vitrine (l'accueil) et le reste c'est moi

@linuxxx I think chrome actually adds sometimes a www if you copy the URL after load, even if there isn't one displayed in the omnibox

Sometimes it's different, my company got

edu.abc.com

and

www.abc.com

both are not the same site

@devTea Yeah but are abc.com and www.abc.com the same?

@TheOct0 well yeah, but someone once said I don't need to mention the edu. because chrome automatically understand it, and when I explained it to them, they just didn't understand, fml

@devTea I hope you didn't spend too much time trying to make them understand

I'm a dinosaur, so I use www for historical reasons as much as anything else :P

Anyway, question for those of you more knowledgeable on these matters: What about cookies? Are cookies set on "example.com" passed passed down to any and all subdomains, like in the past? If so, I'd count that as another reason to use www specifically. *shrug*

@wizzzard In the browser I use, support.ubi.com and store.ubi.com don't share the same cookies, for example. I don't know if it's default behavior, but it seems to work like that under certain circumstances.

I have never had this issue, but on the other hand I only type one domain once, then use autocomplete

@JoshBent it hides it automatically 👍

@AlexDeLarge @Alice
www.dejavu.nl

Also, www. and non-www (just the domain) should always show exactly the same content (REDIRECT TO ONE of those for god's sake) - so yeah @CodeMasterAlex you should rethink that shit, it's an abomination. (go app-subdomain, use an .app tld or go home)

I always mitigate the www-part, even though it was typed.

@raldo94 yeah it hides it, but if you copy it, it'll have the www added iirc

Some websites still require www

It does make it clear that it's a web address to less technical people. Why you would ever read it out though is another matter... 🙄

For me, the subdomains mean something. ”www” is for your landing page. I tend to Reserve the A record for internal use. If you aren't staff with SSO, you get redirected to the www.

@xewl no rethinking on that. This is the first time in over 20 years I have a case to do it like this. I have very good reasons. If you knew the exact details you and others here would understand.

@TheOct0 but ubi.com and store.ubi.com might. Not saying they do, but if cookies are stored with "uni.com" they might get passed to "store.ubi.com" as well, if I understand it correctly.

@CodeMasterAlex please elaborate so I can smack you in the back of the head with 10 other reasons not do this ;P

@xewl I'm afraid I'm not at liberty to disclose enough details. But rest assured, this approach was thoroughly discussed with other very skilled devs and we came to the conclusion that for this specific case this is the approach that is most prefered, the more because the web app MUST be available on Domain.Online, no .app tld or app subdomain or whatever is allowed.

@CodeMasterAlex That "must" regarding the domain name is quite weird, unless you're already running a legacy app or it's Apple fucking you in the buttox.. but I'll believe you. I'll just think mine of it ;D

@xewl the web app's name is the domain name. It would make perfect sense if you know the real name. Eg. Imagine a dating web app, called Dating.Online. You would really want to have that available on Dating.Online and not DatingOnline.app, app.Dating.Online or whatever, especially if the name is used for marketing, branding and other commercial activities. Suppose you want to brand that app in commercials, imagine a good looking woman or man saying: Are you already dating online? Start Dating.Online today! Go to Dating.Online now!' Obviously you don't want that web app on a different domain. The name is its brand, what you can do, what others are doing, where to join in on the action, etc.

Just a lame fictional example and my project has nothing to do with dating at all, but it illustrates the point more or less. Just for the record, it is a pure web app, not a native app nor will there be a native one.

@CodeMasterAlex So you're saying its like if agario had www.agar.io as a website, and just agar.io as the game?

@CodeMasterAlex That definitely makes sense, but I still don’t understand the need to have a *different* site at www. Could the web app not also be the web page that advertises/describes it when not logged in?

I like the www subdomain, and I'm using that as primary URL. The non-www version works via 301 redirect to www so that Google doesn't perceive it as duplicate content.

@CodeMasterAlex Then still, the "app" should still also be reachable from www. (and redir to non-www for non-duplication of content)

Thát's ok. Then I'm all for it.

Though mostly, you would have the "website" in root, and the app itself inner joined with that. The website should point to or show a sign-up form, which posts to your app. A call-out button to login, or even.. show that you're logged in just there.

It's your "website" you need to move either to a subdir or a subdomain, if that is needed for some reason..

Though.. I'd say your website should be on www & non-www, and on its turn do the marketing towards, or innerjoined with, the app platform.

@CodeMasterAlex at work we also have this convoluted mess, where the website is -somewhat- static and the app itself is under /app

The site has dynamic pages and structuring, but isn't in vc. The app itself is in version control.
Which makes that solution "probable" and working; for now.

I've learned to see www and non-www as the same, as that is how it should be. And root should be your marketing materials towards customers; but that's my opinion.

I do wish they didn't reinvent the wheel any time they do something and just made the website from within the app structure. (It's possible...) Now we have stuff like /app/api - insane...

@xewl "I've learned to see www and non-www as the same, as that is how it should be."

I agree with that. It's not that they have to be the same, it's just that they *should* be, because that's just what people (myself included) expect.

@devios1 not only people, also SEO will give you a ++ if it's serving the EXACT same content. EXACT as in: 301/302 redirection to 1 of both, so it's not duplicate content (which is --*9000.01) - but I'm kinda repeating myself now.

Haha the hate is strong in this topic...

I've just put up a prod/staging of a system developed by a third party and those motherfuckers have a .htaccess rule that puts "www." in front of everyfucking URL...

Our "client" made all the domains without the "www." So that fucking rule was breaking everything...

It was literally 4 lines that I had to remove, but fuck who does that shit and it is beautiful compared to the quality/security of their shitty code.