I have a yuuuug bookmarks folder of assorted articles I've come across but haven't had the time to delve into. Now that I'm through my UW classwork I've finally been able to chunk through some of them and today and I came across the (mostly-irrelevant, website-related decision) debate between no-www and www.yes-www.

The debate

The argument by no-www is that www is supposedly “deprecated” in that it's redundant to type. But, if you look at our tech overlords like Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. you'll see that they redirect no-www to www (more on why later). For what it's worth though, having no www has its minimalism aesthetic and anecdotally most smaller sites seem to have no www.

yes-www has actual technical arguments: (1) you can’t use a CNAME record on a "naked domain" (that is, sites with no www) and (2) cookies on the naked domain get sent to all subdomains (so all *.mehvix.com domains) which can mess up caching for static files.


Both of the pro-www points aren't an issue for me now, but best not to limit myself later down the line. To swap, I prefaced the domain with www on this site's CNAME on the GitHub , changed my CNAME and A DNS records so that all prior non-www links would go to the new www version.