http://danielrm26.disqus.com/dmiessler.com/about/enMon, 30 Jul 2007 19:09:46 -0000http://dmiessler.com/blog/eliminating-www-part-2#comment-4355007<p>Daniel, you're in the Boston Globe. The Business Filter on Page 2 of Business and Innovation has a blurb about this post!</p>Richard NealMon, 30 Jul 2007 19:09:46 -0000http://dmiessler.com/blog/eliminating-www-part-2#comment-4355006<p>Great points, Greg.</p>Daniel MiesslerSun, 29 Jul 2007 10:11:01 -0000http://dmiessler.com/blog/eliminating-www-part-2#comment-4355005<p>It's a bit disappointing to me that the majority of comments to your original post disagreed with the premise of no-www, often on the basis of misunderstanding. "But I can just hit ctrl-enter!" or "The internet isn't just the web!" or "Not all sites work this way!". I guess people just don't read the article in the first place.</p><p>Having said the above, I still believe that in print, one should include either "http://" or "www." in front of the domain name. Unless you're specifically targeting a very hip, tech-savvy audience, most people won't recognise a lone domain name something they can type into their browser.</p><p>Finally, as I mentioned in my reply to your original post, a subdomain of some sort is required when using a CDN like Akamai. I think the most important point to take away from this is that web publishers should use redirection to maintain a consistent web presence under a single name. Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.</p>Greg HewgillSun, 29 Jul 2007 06:31:09 -0000