The internet is older than the world wide web, and that’s just one service that exists.
Having a server directly behind the domain like example.com originally wasn’t common. Back in the days, you might want to make an FTP connection or a pop3 connection, or telnet or gopher, which would typically use like ftp.example.com, mail.example.com, telnet.example.com, gopher.example.com. None of these examples are web servers. You wouldn’t get a webpage back from them.
So when the world wide web became a thing, it was common to set up www.example.com and serve webpages from that subdomain.
The thing that changed in the mid 90s as the internet started to become more popular was that the world wide web quickly took over as the main thing people used when connecting to sites for information or data, so after a while it became common to have the web server respond to requests sent to the bare domain itself. (We’re ignoring ports for the sake of simplicity)
Although that change meant that you could go to example.com for most sites, or www.example.com for most sites, people had already learned that “www dot something dot com” meant a website, and so many people typed www even if it wasn’t necessary. And because there was no harm in having this set up, the tradition continues to this day to set up that subdomain and typically point it to the main web server.
But there’s no reason you have to. You can set things up so that requests to example.com get a different website than www.example.com. But it will confuse your visitors, so most people don’t.
So to answer your question: We stopped needing to say “www” in front of websites URLs by the mid 90s for the most part, but it stuck in the ‘common knowledge’ and is still around today because most people have no clue how it all works. In other words, your question is partly wrong, but the part that’s right has been true for almost all of the public internet’s history. :)
by the mid 90s for the most part
And in 2026 it’s still “for the most part” because some people still only configure www, not the domain root, to serve webpages.
This was a really good explanation, thank you!
I think it is also related to computers becoming faster as well. In the old times ftp.example.com, mail.example.com and www.example.com could be run from different machines.
Originally, companies had a much simpler infrastructure and the prefix before a server let you know what sort of server was. So you can imagine something like this:
-mail.microsoft.com
-ftp.microsoft.com
-irc.microsoft.com
-print.microsoft.com
These sorts of services would have been in existence long before the world wide web became commonly used. When it started out, it was logical to put “www” in front of the server name.
Now, DNS is largely used for this purpose. You put “microsoft.com” in your browser and it resolves, and is sent to MSFT. The servers on that end detect what sort of connection it is from the port number used and other methods, then forward your request to the appropriate server automatically. Any variation of it will go to the same place:
-microsoft.com
-etc.
Now, DNS is largely used for this purpose.
Um, that does not really make sense.
-mail.microsoft.com -ftp.microsoft.com -irc.microsoft.com -print.microsoft.com
These are all domain names and DNS servers are used to resolve these to different IPs. Always has done that job and still does it today. But
microsoft.comis a single domain name and DNS can only resolve it to a single address (or set of addresses). So cannot be used to tell different services apart.DNS does not know anything about
httporhttpsor any other protocal like that. It just resolves the domain name to an IP/set of IPs. The only thing it can do is pointwww.microsoft.comandmicrosoft.comto the same location so that you can use either to get to the webservers.The person you responded to did say that DNS will get to the correct place, and then other servers will route the traffic using ports and other information. They were a little too strong in that first sentence that now DNS does it, but they did clarify some.
DNS doesn’t do the full thing, but it does do the first step.
It was also meant to be a simple answer rather than a deeply technical one.
These are all domain names and DNS servers are used to resolve these to different IPs.
These are all subdomain names. And subdomains can point to a different IP, or they can point to the same IP. They can also use a CNAME record to point to another [sub]domain name, and it’s probably most common to have an A record on the main domain with the IP and just use a CNAME on the www subdomain so that it always points to the same place the main domain points.
DNS does not know anything about http or https or any other protocal like that. It just resolves the domain name to an IP/set of IPs. The only thing it can do is point www.microsoft.com and microsoft.com to the same location so that you can use either to get to the webservers.
CNAME is the record that is used to point e.g. www.microsoft.com to microsoft.com. They could use an A record for www.microsoft.com and use the same IP as the A record for microsoft.com, which would accomplish the same thing, but would have to be updated when the IP for microsoft.com changes.
The goal was simplicity, not accuracy. To give the “gist” of it to someone who does not know much about technology.
Because it used to matter more. As other have said “ftp.domain.extension” was for FTP, mail for mail, and www for websites but that has long been somewhat redundant, as the servers at a domain redirect connections to the right place. mail.domain.extension was originally exclusively for mail servers themselves, but lots of websites long ago made it also valid for landing pages for web interfaces for their mail service if a request comes in via http.
WWW was certainly a very useful concept when people were getting used to the internet. A lot of people had no concept of computers and domains, so to say “www.domain.extension” was clear to people “this is the website for your browser”. And when you say www it’s very clear you’re telling someone it’s a website; that is helpful when say your audience my include elderly people who never got used to computers.
Also the redirection of connections is so simple now, that specifying WWW is generally just not needed. WWW is still the basic landing place for many web sites, but if you don’t include it the servers at the domain will very likely direct you on to the right place, and if they don’t your browser will often try again by appending www anyway and retrying to see if it reaches a valid webpage. So now we just don’t need to tell people “you need to include www”.
Also the redirection of connections is so simple now
About when did this happen?
That’s a question that probably requires more digging than I want to do.
On the DNS side, it depends on CNAME record types. Sources in the Wikipedia article suggest that was defined in 1987 and updated in 1997.
On the server side, it depends on how easily the server software can be configured to use multiple domains for the same site (or how easy it is to set up a redirect). This sounds like a deep home to research, and I’m not going to bother. But cPanel and Webmin are both about 30 years old now.
Could also be the amount of processing time strings take.
Because it’s assumed, like area codes.
Since when are area codes assumed?
www.example.comis a subdomain ofexample.com. Just likefoo.example.comorbar.example.com. Many domains direct theirwwwsubdomain to their base domain and vice versa using DNS, but they can resolve to different IP addresses.wwwwas just a convention for notating that the server was for a website on the “world wide web”. As opposed tomail.example.combeing for an email server orftp.example.combeing for a File Transfer Protocol server.Because of the implication
Some websites still have it, for example youtube.com and openstreetmap.org redirect to those URLs with www. in front of them at least for me.
Other comments already correctly explained that the original idea was that the third level domain would indicate what kind of server it is: www.example.com as opposed to irc.example.com, ftp.example.com, smtp.example.com, whatever. That convention existed before the WWW was invented; when it was, it was just yet another kind of service that existed on the Internet.
The WWW has by now developed into pretty much the default service people use the Internet for, so it’s usually no longer necessary to add www., although it’s still technically possible for www.example.com to point elsewhere than example.com, or even for one of them to work and the other not. Whether the version with www. redirects to the one without or the other way round, is something most people don’t even notice…
As for why we don’t say it, the reason is approximately the same: the WWW is now generally understood to be the default service of the Internet (many people don’t even know they are different things), so when you mention a domain name nowadays, it’s assumed by default that you are talking about what’s served on that domain on the web, not something else.
Most websites have a CNAME for “www” pointing to the main domain. Certainly all the webhosting panels I know of do it automatically, because there’s no great reason not to. Some people will use “www” and so if it fails, that’s a silly thing to have fail.
When giving a web address, I’ve heard someone say the entire url with the www and https, if was a little crazy to hear
That was pretty much standard for a while.
Anything in front of the . is a subdomain: “subdomain.domain.com”.
When webpages new, it was convention to use the subdomain for web traffic. Technically you can still set up your site and make www.mydomain.com different from domain.com, but pretty much everyone just makes one their primary site and then redirects the other one. So you set up www.mydomain.com to redirect to mydomain.com and just use that one for your main site, or vice versa.
In Japan, many still do and, if you forget, you often don’t get automatically redirected but rather get an error page.
Mainly because it’s lost it’s novelity. all browsers automatically search for it so it’s not something people need.
The browsers do no such thing. Domain names and servers are usually configured to redirect traffic as needed, but if you expect traffic on www.yourdomain.example the browsers won’t redirect yourdomain.example to it unless you explicitly tell them to.
ah my bad, it’s at the server end, point still goes from the user end, there’s almost nowhere that they would go in which they have to type in the www.
We need mmm.example.com
only works in Australia
ɯoɔ˙ǝldɯɐxǝ˙ɯɯɯ//:dʇʇɥ :puɐlɐǝZ ʍǝN uᴉ ʞɹoʍ oʇ ɯǝǝs ʇ,usǝop ʇᴉ ʎlpɹᴉǝʍ ʇnq 'ooʇ ǝɹǝɥ ʞɹoʍ oʇ ʇᴉ pǝʇɔǝdxǝ ǝʌ,plnoʍ ᴉ ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ uᴉ sʞɹoʍ ʇᴉ ɟI
lol, the link got translated as well and points to https://lemmy.world/post/53047256/ɯoɔ˙ǝldɯɐxǝ˙ɯɯɯ//:dʇʇɥ
Ah, well, it’s less amusing being encoded. oof.
And it doesn’t work in NZ because 1) doesn’t exist (evidence: maps) and 2) no dropbears there :)
Do write 3 less letters
Or 9 less syllables to pronounce
Those are rookie numbers. I reckon you can get that down to six without even tryin’.
I just say “dub dub dub,” though I don’t need to anymore.
Because saying “www” is a mouthful and serves no purpose to express vocally these days.
We’d had enough dubya by 2007
Old people still do. And they also mention capital letters in their email as if capitalization does anything.
in the email spec if I remember correctly, capital letters can indeed be handled differently







