20 Aug
2004
20 Aug
'04
6:25 a.m.
Hans Franke wrote:
Am 20 Aug 2004 13:25 meinte David V. Corbin:
Ahem.
First, as referenced by "http://www.mydomain.tld",
"www.mydomain.tld"
is NOT a subdomain, it's the FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) of an
individual host. Even if the hostname www.mydomain.tld is served by a
farm or cluster, as far as client access goes and as far as DNS is
concerned, it's a single entity, and it's a hostname, not a subdomain.
Second, resolving a domain name as a host breaks RFC definitions and
recommendations. A lot of sites do it (including my company, against my
wishes), but it is improper.
Doc
>>>Hans Wrote.....
>>>
>>>>http://lowendmac.com/
>>>>(note that they are among the few who got the name thing
>>>
>>>right ... no
>>>
>>>>'www.')
First I will agree that nearly every site gets it
wrong. But that does not
imply that this site got it right!
The protocol [http://] and site [...somewhere.tld]
are really independent.
For many entities ftp.myplace.com and www.myplace.com can be located worlds
apart. To further complicate matters an entity may want independent features
using the same protocol [internal.mysite.com www.mysite.com].
For MOST sites http://mydomain.tld should map to
http://www.mydomain.tld for
convience, but I will argue that is is not a requirement to have "done it
right".
Yep, you're right here. If there are multiple _computers_ with multiple
_ip-addresses_ involved. Just, to my unserstandig at least 98% of all
domain names registered are done so for websites, often running with
several hundrets other on the same machine. So, why do they tell their
servers only to react onto the subdomain www. ?