But using S3 for static sites comes with a big caveat: You can't host root domains on it because you need to use a CNAME to point to S3. And a CNAME must be a subdomain; it can't be a root domain.
I set up a petition to Amazon to point out the problem:
Also be aware that their are benefits to hosting your site on www. - its not just for historical reasons. e.g. the ability to restrict cookies to the subdomain - which you can't do with root domains as it affects all subdomains also.
Not to mention people will some people will still go to www. by default anyhow so you're always going to have to have a www.
A is a FQDN string and has the form NB, where N is a non-empty name
string, B has the form .B', and B' is a FQDN string. (So, x.y.com
domain-matches .y.com but not y.com.)
However, I was a little tongue-in-cheek there. The RFC disagrees, but browsers have been doing it wrong for as long as I can remember. So, in practice he's right... ;)
Look: the technology was designed in a certain way, and in this ecosystem (which you can't fix) you need to have a www. on your hostname. People need to learn to deal with this, and to get over their arbitrary hatred for "www." (a string that user studies, for the record, show really helps normal end users understand that this weird thing they are looking at is actually something they can type into a web browser).
See my Route 53 post at http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2010/12/amazon-route-53-the-aws-d... from last December when I first mentioned this.
I believe the big downside is that I'll never be able to use email on that domain because of the CNAME. Which, for me, wasn't a big deal.
If this seems interesting to anyone let me know, I'd love to chat about it or collaborate on it moving forward.