<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: World Wide Web indicator, is it needed?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/</link>
	<description>The rants and raves of the interweb.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:41:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Portland Portals</title>
		<link>http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-34819</link>
		<dc:creator>Portland Portals</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/#comment-34819</guid>
		<description>While I agree in principal many would feel lost without their www. It is just as simple to define your domains with both www and non www. The problem is those who dont define their domain without the www. I had a customer who ran an intranet/extranet on our hosting service and refused to define the domain without the www. He used to say if they were too lazy to type it in then they didn&#039;t deserve to find his Portal. So if they truncated all the domains out there 10% of the web might go dark, which in retrospect might not be a bad thing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I agree in principal many would feel lost without their www. It is just as simple to define your domains with both www and non www. The problem is those who dont define their domain without the www. I had a customer who ran an intranet/extranet on our hosting service and refused to define the domain without the www. He used to say if they were too lazy to type it in then they didn't deserve to find his Portal. So if they truncated all the domains out there 10% of the web might go dark, which in retrospect might not be a bad thing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: parvinder</title>
		<link>http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-26651</link>
		<dc:creator>parvinder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 04:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/#comment-26651</guid>
		<description>I will try something more home system orientated at a later date, but until then my status on Linux as a home system stays as &quot;not the best idea&quot;. I do use Linux for all of my websites and servers though and it has been perfect in that respect.But I agree with your blog because use of WWW show all the status of site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will try something more home system orientated at a later date, but until then my status on Linux as a home system stays as "not the best idea". I do use Linux for all of my websites and servers though and it has been perfect in that respect.But I agree with your blog because use of WWW show all the status of site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Pearson</title>
		<link>http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-14678</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Pearson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.bull3t.me.uk/archives/internet/world-wide-web-indicator-is-it-needed/#comment-14678</guid>
		<description>I agree.  Getting rid of it now would just confuse people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  Getting rid of it now would just confuse people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
