Re: musl 0.9.5 release and new website

[Conrad Pankoff <deoxxa@fknsrs.biz>]

There's also a few technical specifics that having www (or some other second level part) can help with.

If you have HTTP authentication (think basic auth) or you're using cookies, you should be using www or something. This is because both of these mechanisms apply to the domain where they were initiated and anything below. If you initiate basic auth on www.example.com, it'll be sent automatically when you go to www.example.com, 1.www.example.com, etc. It won't, however, be sent to example.com or something-else.example.com. Same deal with cookies.

Regards,
Conrad

On 16/09/2012, at 1:35 PM, Rich Felker wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 04:05:05PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 09/15/2012 03:53 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>> i would http redirect the non 'www.' prefixed host
>>> to the 'www.' prefixed one
>> 
>> please do the opposite, cargo culting www is terrible.
> 
> I disagree on this one. If the domain _IS_ a website (think
> facebook.com, etc.) then I agree it's perfectly reasonable, and
> probably aesthetically nicer, to have the base domain without www be
> the primary name for the website. But if the domain corresponds to
> some project, organization, brand, product, etc. that's not a website
> itself, then www.[whatever].[tld] serves to identify it as "the
> _webserver_ for [whatever]", alongside other possible servers like the
> git server, the ftp server, etc. The idea of using different domain
> names for each of them is that you can transparently move them to
> different machines without breaking urls.
> 
> Using a redirecting webserver on the base domain name doesn't really
> conflict with this principle since it's not something that would need
> to be moved; it's a very low-load service that's only hit when someone
> lazy types the url by hand...
> 
> Rich