Timeline for What does wwws mean?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2021 at 6:22 | comment | added | Tilak Madichetti | rpcalculations.com and rpcalculations.com are different websites | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 11:27 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Feb 20, 2018 at 13:08 | |||||
| Jan 19, 2014 at 18:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jan 19, 2014 at 19:16 | |||||
| May 6, 2012 at 4:58 | comment | added | Ben Voigt |
@RedGrittyBrick: Olivier is completely correct. Not just any pair of names will do. Cookies associated with example.net will be included in all requests to static.example.net. You don't want either name to be a suffix of the other.
|
|
| Dec 20, 2011 at 21:18 | vote | accept | Adam | ||
| Nov 4, 2011 at 21:55 | comment | added | Zan Lynx | I've also seen wwws used as a name for a SSL accelerator proxy. | |
| Nov 3, 2011 at 23:06 | comment | added | nhinkle |
Keeping the www (or some other) prefix is also necessary to do DNS-based load balancing using CNAME DNS entries. @RedGrittyBrick, this was a very well-written answer. Would you be interested in changing and/or expanding it a bit into an article on the Super User Blog? I think it would be a great article. Let me know by comment reply or on chat if you're interested!
|
|
| Nov 3, 2011 at 12:08 | history | edited | Gareth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Nov 3, 2011 at 11:58 | history | edited | RedGrittyBrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Formatting. Precis.
|
| Nov 3, 2011 at 10:54 | comment | added | RedGrittyBrick | @Steve314: Tim Berners-Lee coined the name "World Wide Web", he and his team created HTTP version 1.0 as a fundamental part of his vision for the concept of a World Wide Web. Whilst the World Wide Web encompasses other protocols (in a somewhat secondary and minor role), HTTP itself sprang directly from TBL's concept of a World Wide Web. In a short answer you have to make some generalisations in order not to lose the attention of the person asking the question. When I get time, I'll see if I can update my answer to address the point you raise. | |
| Nov 3, 2011 at 10:45 | comment | added | RedGrittyBrick |
@Oliver: That article is about using a different base-URL for serving static content with a faster static-only HTTP server. You can achieve this by using different port numbers (e.g. http://example.com:81/… instead of http://static.example.com) or by using any pair of server hostnames (e.g. example.com for dynamic content and static.example.com for static content). In neither case is the www necessary.
|
|
| Nov 3, 2011 at 8:35 | comment | added | user31438 |
Shorthand for an http server? But http can be used for more than serving up World Wide Web data, and other protocols (ftp etc) can be served up from the same IP address (and therefore the same domain). Wouldn't www have been reserved specifically for a server intended to serve up "World Wide Web" data?
|
|
| Nov 3, 2011 at 7:56 | comment | added | Olivier Pons |
What? Damn! I've read The trend is to drop these prefixes (e.g. look above: superuser.com instead of www.superuser.com)? Be warned: when optimizing website, you absolutely have to keep this www. Search google for "Use Cookie-free Domains for Components" and you'll get the picture: fast websites very often keep the "www". Be warned!
|
|
| Nov 3, 2011 at 5:04 | comment | added | Mark Hurd | Simple edit: "some corporations had servers named ...)" -> "some corporations had servers named ...) and many ISPs still do." | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 22:58 | comment | added | Wipqozn | +1 THis is why I love Stack Exchange. I'm guaranteed to learn something new everyday. | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 22:07 | comment | added | Joel Coehoorn | +1 for getting the reserved "example" name right! ;) | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:37 | comment | added | Chris W. Rea | Related: superuser.com/questions/60006/… | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:34 | history | edited | RedGrittyBrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:32 | comment | added | Chris Nava | The www1,www2,etc. was actually useful at one point. Netscape originally used that naming schema to implement crude load balancing for their web site in the early browsers. cse.iitk.ac.in/users/braman/courses/cs625-fall2003/lec-notes/… however, that was quickly overcome by other methods. | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:20 | comment | added | iglvzx | @slhck Ok. Undeleted. | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:17 | comment | added | slhck | @iglvzx Please undelete it. You're new to the site, and you shouldn't be punished for being a few seconds late. That's not the point of Stack Exchange. | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:07 | comment | added | iglvzx | I had posted a similar answer, but you beat me to it. Deleted. :) | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:06 | comment | added | Jin |
To add on, it is no different from sites that has URLs like secure.example.net, and it also explains the occasional appearances of www1.example.net/www2.example.net :)
|
|
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:04 | history | edited | RedGrittyBrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 233 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2011 at 17:02 | comment | added | slhck | See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web#WWW_prefix | |
| Nov 2, 2011 at 16:59 | history | answered | RedGrittyBrick | CC BY-SA 3.0 |