"web." rather than "www."

SpaceFlight   Thu May 03, 2007 8:27 pm GMT
I think "web." would be better than the current "www." due to "web" being much less cumbersome to pronounce. One syllable rather than nine! What do you think?
Guest   Thu May 03, 2007 8:50 pm GMT
"www" is actually an unnecessary subdomain and should be gotten rid of entirely.
furrykef   Thu May 03, 2007 9:29 pm GMT
Unnecessary, perhaps, but not entirely. When you say "www.example.com", you're unambiguously referring to a website, as opposed to, say, an FTP server or IRC server. You're also unambiguously referring to the main site and not some other subdomain. Of course, most people don't care about that and take it for granted that a domain without "www" is the main website at that domain, but that can change in the future. (Of course, that still wouldn't really make "www" necessary now.)

Using "web." instead of "www." probably would have been a better idea (in fact, I think I did see one website that used "web."), but I think it's too late to change it now. If you want to be radical, dropping the prefix altogether probably would be a better idea. Or you could just pronounce "www" as "dub dub dub" (I hear that this is already common in Australia).

By the way, it always annoys me when people don't pronounce the dot after the "www". I remember one commercial from years ago that said "double-you double-you double-you okguard dot com". (Looks like it's been taken by a cybersquatter now. Figures.) The first dot isn't any less special than the first dot, folks...

- Kef
Guest   Thu May 03, 2007 9:34 pm GMT
Ok girls. Are you out of language topics that's why you girls are desperately moaning over silly issues? You can always say three W, it sounds nice and short, and easy to pronounce and people can get the idea.
Travis   Thu May 03, 2007 9:40 pm GMT
>>Unnecessary, perhaps, but not entirely. When you say "www.example.com", you're unambiguously referring to a website, as opposed to, say, an FTP server or IRC server. You're also unambiguously referring to the main site and not some other subdomain. Of course, most people don't care about that and take it for granted that a domain without "www" is the main website at that domain, but that can change in the future. (Of course, that still wouldn't really make "www" necessary now.)<<

But isn't this what port numbers and protocol identifiers (which also provide default port numbers) are for? One can easily have a web server, an FTP server, and an IRC server all on the same machine, just being accessed through different ports. Even when one has multiple separate machines handling these different things for a single domain, one can have a transparent proxy that redirects the requisite ports the machines in question. Consequently, assigning separate externally accessible subdomains for each of such machines is unnecessary, which is beneficial in that it allows greater control over the security of the machines in question.
Guest   Thu May 03, 2007 9:41 pm GMT
<<Ok girls. Are you out of language topics that's why you girls are desperately moaning over silly issues? You can always say three W, it sounds nice and short, and easy to pronounce and people can get the idea.>>

They are boys.
Travis   Thu May 03, 2007 9:46 pm GMT
Wrong word - I meant "reverse proxy" when I said "transparent proxy".
WebWebWeb   Thu May 03, 2007 10:43 pm GMT
One most websites, you don't need the dub dub dub part. Click here: http://antimoon.com/

However on some it is required. It just depends on how they have their servers set up. A web server could have web.something.com. They just have to set up a subdomain called "web". They could even choose to not have a www.something.com.
Guest   Thu May 03, 2007 11:26 pm GMT
>They are boys. >

I knew that they were boys. I said girls in a sarcastic way because the way they were discussing things on the topic. Come on, this forum needs some hot topics. It is the best forum on the net!
Lazar   Fri May 04, 2007 2:42 am GMT
<<Or you could just pronounce "www" as "dub dub dub" (I hear that this is already common in Australia).>>

Another suggestion that I've seen is "sextuple u".
Guest   Fri May 04, 2007 3:00 am GMT
>> Another suggestion that I've seen is "sextuple u".<<

I don't think anyone would understand that. It sounds very strange as well. I wouldn't recommend using that one ;-)
Jim   Fri May 04, 2007 2:09 pm GMT
... or triple double yu ... but I'd favour "www" over "web" any day ease of pronouncing verses ease of typing.
WebWebWeb   Fri May 04, 2007 2:25 pm GMT
>> ... or triple double yu ... but I'd favour "www" over "web" any day ease of pronouncing verses ease of typing. <<

If it's ease of typing you're going for, why not dispense with it altogether? At least 90% of all servers are configured to not require it at all. I'm viewing http://antimoon.com not http://www.antimoon.com/ right now. The only reason that people say it is to make sure people know it's a website rather than something else. Just a few years ago, you would see billboards advertising sites like http://www.microsoft.com/ . Then, they have for the most part dispensed with the http:// part and started writing simply www.microsoft.com . Now you'll see many sites that don't even advertise with that. When is the last time that you've heard someone say that they are going to www.google.com? Most would now simply say google.com . Anything that ends with a domain name like .com or .co.uk or .org or whatever most people assume to be an HTTP website unless you specify otherwise.
Lazar   Sat May 05, 2007 12:32 am GMT
<<I don't think anyone would understand that. It sounds very strange as well. I wouldn't recommend using that one ;-)>>

I don't think it would be too hard for most people to understand. It's logical in a way, and it's definitely an improvement over saying "double u double u double u".

But I suppose it's a moot point, because it's not necessary to specify "www" in speech anyway.
furrykef   Sat May 05, 2007 12:51 am GMT
To me, "sextuple-u" would suggest "uuuuuu", not "www". I'd only use "sextuple-u" humorously.