For the "www" I tend to elide the vowel at the end, so it's more of a "duby duby dubya." And if I'm speaking with someone somewhat knowledgable, I won't even say it.
Same for "http://". Usually omitted. If I'm reading off a URL and feel the need to include it, I'll just pronounce the "http" part, and if it's someone who really needs help (ah, tech support) I'll pronounce the "://" part too. I picked the first option since that's usually the situation I'm in.
I had to laugh at "wuh wuh wuh" and "huttup". :-D ... Shame you didn't also put in "submit dot bummle".
I didn't take your poll because my answers depend on context. Obviously, when I speak to Germans I say "vé vé vé", and "Punkt" instead of "dot", even with an obviously English-based URL like "livejournal.com". With English speakers, I feel kind of forced to say the unwieldy "double-you double-you double-you". My dad likes to say "triple-double-you". (I'm still waiting for someone to seriously suggest "hexuple-you".)
In my mind, however, I have my own weird set of pronunciations that I never really pronounce out loud. The @ sign, for example, is "v" [v] (originally from Russian в). A single slash is "slash", but "http://" is "há té té pé ding ding". In programming (especially in Delphi because I've been doing a lot of Pascal as a child) I have many many more of these.
I've thought about this some more, and I've come to realise that the more recently I first encountered something, the less likely I am to have a pronunciation for it at all. In Perl, there are loads of things (like "->" or "=>" or "::" or "$_" etc.) for which I have never thought up a pronunciation. I guess this means that I think differently (more abstractly?) now than I did when I was young.
I also realised at one point that I don't have a name for $_ in Perl; I "read" it when I'm reading someone else's code (e.g. to type it in somewhere else) but I don't have a vocalisation for it.
I find this too - I see the signs, but don't sound them in my brain - they're just things that don't have names. Well, I suppose they have names (such as "dollar underscore", but I don't use them, they're just stored as images instead of words.
There's some goomba who's had some kind of helpful-how-to-use-a-computer show on regional public TV networks here in Canuckistan (e.g. Knowledge Network in BC, Access in Alberta) who's been pushing "woo-woo-woo" (for www) for years. I have yet to hear anyone other than him use that. Thank heavens.
I ought to tell people off for assuming "www", it being outdated and all
I disagree -- and also with the statement on that website (http://no-www.org/) that "www" in Internet hostnames is a "subdomain". I call it a "hostname": it's host "www" in the "livejournal.com" (for example) domain, just like a company server might be, say, gandalf.example.com: host "gandalf" in domain "example.com".
I find it weird to go to http://example.com/, since to my mind, a domain has SOA, NS, and MX entries, but no A or CNAME entries -- I associate A entries with *hosts*, not *domains*, and for me, a host is beneath a domain.
I know that it works, but it still feels kind of icky to me.
Now, whether the host is called www or something else (e.g. MIT's website was called web.mit.edu for a long time, and www.mit.edu, which came later, was some student-run machine) is not so important, though www is a kind of quasi-standard for "the name of the machine running the web server for a given (sub)domain".
The comparison with email not going to user@mail.example.com is also not valid IMO, since mail is looked up by MX record, not by A record (though as a fallback, A will usually be used if no MX record is found).
Now, if we have a SVC (I think it was) record saying that for HTTP requests to example.com, www.example.com is to be used, then fine, but that's not widespread at all in domains and I think browsers probably don't support it anyway, so you can't compare email and HTTP.
*shrugs* I'll use www, you can drop it if the site allows it. Just saying. (Oh, and "class C no-www" sites annoy me slightly. simon-cozens.org is an example.)
I think you're getting friended. I spotted you on the support forums, and the name tag-line hooked me in…
Welcome! Most of my entries are public, so you're not missing much.
Erm. What I understand of that makes sense, I think. I'm not quite geeky enough to properly understand all the acronyms...
I think it depends where you look at it from - the person looking after the servers may prefer to have everything named as standard, while an end user never sees the servers, and just sees a site that works or doesn't work, so to them it makes sense.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Same for "http://". Usually omitted. If I'm reading off a URL and feel the need to include it, I'll just pronounce the "http" part, and if it's someone who really needs help (ah, tech support) I'll pronounce the "://" part too. I picked the first option since that's usually the situation I'm in.
no subject
I didn't take your poll because my answers depend on context. Obviously, when I speak to Germans I say "vé vé vé", and "Punkt" instead of "dot", even with an obviously English-based URL like "livejournal.com". With English speakers, I feel kind of forced to say the unwieldy "double-you double-you double-you". My dad likes to say "triple-double-you". (I'm still waiting for someone to seriously suggest "hexuple-you".)
In my mind, however, I have my own weird set of pronunciations that I never really pronounce out loud. The @ sign, for example, is "v" [v] (originally from Russian в). A single slash is "slash", but "http://" is "há té té pé ding ding". In programming (especially in Delphi because I've been doing a lot of Pascal as a child) I have many many more of these.
no subject
no subject
I also realised at one point that I don't have a name for $_ in Perl; I "read" it when I'm reading someone else's code (e.g. to type it in somewhere else) but I don't have a vocalisation for it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think you're getting friended. I spotted you on the support forums, and the name tag-line hooked me in…
To WWW or not to WWW
I disagree -- and also with the statement on that website (http://no-www.org/) that "www" in Internet hostnames is a "subdomain". I call it a "hostname": it's host "www" in the "livejournal.com" (for example) domain, just like a company server might be, say, gandalf.example.com: host "gandalf" in domain "example.com".
I find it weird to go to http://example.com/, since to my mind, a domain has SOA, NS, and MX entries, but no A or CNAME entries -- I associate A entries with *hosts*, not *domains*, and for me, a host is beneath a domain.
I know that it works, but it still feels kind of icky to me.
Now, whether the host is called www or something else (e.g. MIT's website was called web.mit.edu for a long time, and www.mit.edu, which came later, was some student-run machine) is not so important, though www is a kind of quasi-standard for "the name of the machine running the web server for a given (sub)domain".
The comparison with email not going to user@mail.example.com is also not valid IMO, since mail is looked up by MX record, not by A record (though as a fallback, A will usually be used if no MX record is found).
Now, if we have a SVC (I think it was) record saying that for HTTP requests to example.com, www.example.com is to be used, then fine, but that's not widespread at all in domains and I think browsers probably don't support it anyway, so you can't compare email and HTTP.
*shrugs* I'll use www, you can drop it if the site allows it. Just saying. (Oh, and "class C no-www" sites annoy me slightly. simon-cozens.org is an example.)
I think you're getting friended. I spotted you on the support forums, and the name tag-line hooked me in…
Welcome! Most of my entries are public, so you're not missing much.
Re: To WWW or not to WWW
I think it depends where you look at it from - the person looking after the servers may prefer to have everything named as standard, while an end user never sees the servers, and just sees a site that works or doesn't work, so to them it makes sense.
But yes, sites that don't allow www are annoying.