Do we need the WWW?

[JackWolfgang]

Edit: Put "WWW" in quotes so readers don't think I am wondering about the usefulness of the whole web. (Later note that this appears for this post, but did not change the thread title.)

This article was posted on the OSMinistry.com (http://OSMinistry.com) forum, and it makes a valid point:

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/futuretense/2004/12/24.shtml#000902

What do you think?

[David Gillaspey]

Check out this article: http://www.icann.org/tlds/.

I'll quote the relevant material:

<< The right-most label in a domain name is referred to as its "top-level domain" (TLD).

The DNS [domain-name system] forms a tree-like hierarchy. Each TLD includes many second-level domains (such as "icann" in "www.icann.org"); each second-level domain can include a number of third-level domains ("www" in "www.icann.org"), and so on. >>

It appears to me that ICANN would beg to differ with Mr. Gordon (the columnist whose article Jack cites).

Now take a look at:

http://www.cmu.edu/computing/documentation/thirdleveldomain/thirdlevel.htm

which discusses third-level domain names in the context of Carnegie Mellon University.

(Third level domain names are also known as subdomains.)

Mr. Gordon doesn't realize there is a reason for the existence of third-level domain names. In fact, I believe he fails to take into account intranets as well as the internet. Sure, the average home user just wants to see a document on the World Wide Web. But there are many contexts -- academic, technical, government -- where, I think, the document the user wants to view in a browser is as likely to be located on his or her own organization's internal servers as it is to be located on the World Wide Web. Very likely, there would be something replacing the "www" of the URL in that case. In such a situation, I'm not sure that just typing in "domainname.com/desired_article.html" in the browser address bar will work.

Now take a look at

http://content.websitegear.com/article/about_subdomain.htm

First, I acknowledge this article makes a statement agreeing with Mr. Gordon. But isn't it interesting the article says both, "However, there is no need to add www in front of the domain name" and yet goes on to discuss the subject of "Why are subdomains used?" Doesn't that seem just a little contradictory?

By the way, try this variation of the above URL:

http://www.content.websitegear.com/article/about_subdomain.htm

It doesn't work!

So the reverse can be shown to not always be true: You can't always ADD the "www" and get a valid URL.

Now go here:

http://www2.edc.org/NCIP/

try it without the "http://www2". Still works. This shows that (in Mr. Gordon's favor) that you can drop other third-level domains and get the page you want.

Now go here:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

Try it without the "www" -- just enter "acf.hhs.gov/" in your browser address bar and hit return. Doesn't work.

So, what exactly am I trying to say?

1) Mr. Gordon is basically correct, but ...

2) Mr. Gordon based his opinion on his own experience. The above URLs took me five minutes to find on Google. Doesn't that suggest that Mr. Gordon couldn't be bothered to take even five minutes to do a little research?

3) Because if he had, he would have discovered there was more to the picture.

Finally, let me ask this question of Mr. Gordon: Do we really need the "1" in front of "1-800-123-4567"? You see, that's what really bugs me.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[JackWolfgang]

Good points, David.

A small rebuttal with regards to your intranet point:

When I worked for the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, our intranet had no TLD or sub-domain. But the thing is was we were all on the same network, and therefore DNS could direct us when we typed the name into our browser.

However, I realize there are organizations that need intranet access outside their company's network. That brings me to the crux of my question. Can these two addresses not be different:

example.org
intra.example.org

I need to look at the documentation you provided, but as I recall, Gordon went at it from the point of view that the subdomain used to be used to indicate what type of resource you had (which is done by the letters in front of the "://", which makes me wonder why they ever did that to start with). For example, a gopher resource might be gopher.example.org, where as the ftp site might be ftp.example.org. We still see this quite a bit with ftp sites.

[MrHerald]

I was just searching on something and found this thread here. I am Bob Brown from the osministry site mentioned above. The thread that was mentioned is here: End the WWW (http://osministry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=455)


The point is that "www" just is not necessary. There is no rule across the internet that says that "www" must be used. It was a convention used in the early days when the internet not the web. The second level domain provided the primary route to the server and the subdomains led to each feature. Web pages were just another feature.

Now we are in a world where many people are not aware that there is much more to the internet than web pages. When you visit a domain that is what you expect to find. Yet, we still use www for many sites with no reason.

There is no reason to really continue using the www subdomain except for legacy reasons on some old systems.

Now, for the reason why this bugs me.
I do some web hosting. I have been doing hosting for several years and still run into the same problem. People think that web addresses need www. as much as they need http://
They will automatically add it without realizing it may not work.

I believe that www. ought to be put back in its place. It is just an arbitrary subdomain like any other.

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Bob,

First, belated thanks for joining the forum.

OK, I'm ready to concede the point, since you have actual experience with hosting websites.

But, just for my information, what are the technical issues behind a domain name like this:

http://www.or.blm.gov

(which, by the way, does not work without the "www")?

If we (everyone on the internet, I mean) drop the "www", what's the best way of describing exceptions like this? (I'm at loss for a simple description, since I don't understand the technical issues involved, but I'm guessing you do.)

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites