What are the pros and cons of using www?

Question

Duplicate:

Should I use my site at www.foo by default or not?

---

Honestly, I am not aware of the differences between " http://example.com " and " http://www.example.com ".

I usually use a shorter version without "www" just for the sake of length. But I know (think) that there can be cookie conflicts when users try to access the site, when they alternate the version that they use. Therefore, on all my sites, I just " http://www.foo.com/bar " redirected to " http://foo.com/bar ". But can you say anything about using www?

Answer 1

www- this is only a subdomain, like any other. This is nothing special. Back when most of the Internet experience was a service other than HTTP, it makes sense to use HTTP traffic for a specific subdomain. Currently, the vast majority of domain names exist simply to serve HTTP traffic, so the distinction is not necessary. I think that they usually prefer to use the “shorter version”, as you call it, and redirect the WWW to the main domain.

Answer 2

www - , ftp FTP- .. . , stackoverflow.com, www.site.com .com.

Answer 3

WWW CNAME

Answer 4

www - , . ftp irc.

, , "", , , , , www .

Answer 5

Yes, there may be cookie conflicts, and I have seen this many times on web forums.

As for the appropriateness of any approach, I can’t tell you that it’s better than the other, but I can say that (in light of the above cookie problem) you should accept both, but redirect one to the other so that the entire URL used in the same format.