Talk:World Wide Web

Regarding the definition of the WWW.

The below is copied from Tim Berners-Lee home-page at the w3c site...

"In 1989, he proposed a global hypertext project, to be known as the World Wide Web. Based on the earlier "Enquire" work, it was designed to allow people to work together by combining their knowledge in a web of hypertext documents. He wrote the first World Wide Web server, "httpd", and the first client, "WorldWideWeb" a what-you-see-is-what-you-get hypertext browser/editor which ran in the NeXTStep environment. This work was started in October 1990, and the program "WorldWideWeb" first made available within CERN in December, and on the Internet at large in the summer of 1991"

My reading of this is that the www is the ineraction with hypertext data, through the server/browser relationship. (This would include active X items - Flash player imediately comes to mind)

An internet is a more general term for a set of interconnected computer networks that are connected by internetworking. The largest of which the public are familiar with, and is called simply the internet.

While people may use other elements of the Internet like POP3 or FTP (whether through a HTML page or application) these methods of data transfer are related to an internet not the WWW, which more specificaly describes the way in which people can use these technologies (ie yahoo is a hypertext front end to POP3/SMTP)

M.J.Ingram 20040923

The word "abstract" was added to the first sentence (...an abstract network...), with the comment "Clarifying that the world wide web is a logical network rather than a single physical". That doesn't "clarify" anything, and I disagree that it's even true. What people mean when they say "World Wide Web" is specifically the one to which Yahoo and every other site they know about is attached, and that's a large network of physical computers connected by real wires and fiber and other means. When I type "http://www.yahoo.com" into my browser, I am sending messages to routers to locate a specific piece of hardware owned by a specific company. What's "abstract" about that? --Lee Daniel Crocker

What it means is that the connectivity graph of the WWW is an abstract graph which is at a layer above the actual physical connectivity "graph" of the Internet itself. The two are in no way congruent: nodes which are separated by many other nodes in the actual physical network can be neighbours via hyper-links. It is quite properly, therefore, described as an "abstract" network. Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The WWW and the Internet

I have one problem with this page, but I wasn't certain how to correct it in a fashion you would find acceptable. The phrase "the Web encompasses the entire Internet." seems to perpetuate the idea that The Web == The Internet. I realize this is representative of the views of many, but not exactly accurate. Perhaps "the Web exists on the Internet" would convey the intended thought without perpetuating the media's myth that The Web == The Internet == AOL.--RDP

What a large number of mis-informed people mean when they say "World Wide Web" is not accurate, and an encyclopedia article should correct misperceptions. The World Wide Web is not what Yahoo et al are attached to, it is what they implement. The Internet is what they are attached to. I wouldn't call the Web abstract either, but it sure isn't the routers and wires. --Alan Millar

Perhaps "...the entire hypertext portion of the Internet"? We wouldn't want to leave out Usenet, or e-mail, for instance. -- Xaonon

I think its hard to precisely define the WWW. Is it just HTTP, or should FTP count as well? What about Whiz-Bang-New-Transport-Protocol-To-Replace-HTTP that the IETF and W3C will be releasing next week? And if they are included, why not also include SMTP and NNTP and IRC and ICQ and TELNET even? Is it just HTML, or should we also count PDF or Microsoft Word files on webservers? Even the "Internet" is largely undefinable -- it is a very large set of computers all connected to each other using TCP/IP protocols, but which set? We could never list all its members, and unlike a classic centralised network, there is no single computer that could not be removed from the Internet without destroying its status as the "Internet". In summary, the WWW is a term with very fuzzy boundaries. -- SJK

IMNSHO, the WWW is the web of pages - i.e. the nodes in the graph are the files, and the arcs are the addresses and transport protocols (which is what a URL is - a combo of address and protocol [which are, as you pointed out, in some cases FTP, etc]) used to link them. But it's clearly the set of hyperlinked objects which are the WWW. Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(What a mess this is. I've rewritten this comment four times already.)

How about "The Web is all static content referenced by URLs" ?

After all, we got FTP URLs in the ftp://ftp.site.com/path/file style to replace the (nicer looking) ftp.site.com:/path/file addresses so that we'd have a uniform way to reference documents on the Web. (I'm shooting from memory here, guess I should read the relevant RFCs too.) Same goes for gopher:// URLs.

URLs for IRC/ICQ, Telnet, eDonkey, VoIP calls, etc don't exactly reference documents, and it happens that those kinds of URLs pretty well match what I feel is not part of the Web. You rarely get the opportunity to say "here's an IRC link that will give you all the information you need". In short, transient information is not part of the web (but it might get caught in it). Admittedly, things like nntp:// and ed2k:// are somewhat borderline cases.

Unfortunately, this rules out "web radio", but then it was They who chose that name, and not me. Unfortunately #2, it would also include Freenet, which is hardly part of the Web as such..

By the way, "IMNSHO" is rude. (Unless, in this context, you are Berners-Lee.)

-- magetoo 10:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Things to be covered here

These bullet items I removed from Internet, where they don't belong. They do need to be covered here somewhere.

Authoring

The section on Javascript is inaccurate. the folk at netscape were so bloody arrogant they thought it would pretty much solve every known problem in computing if not world hunger. Suggesting that they had no idea what it would become might be correct, suggesting that they did not know how big it would become is not.

Extraneous content?

This was on the main page. I don't know why.

In 2001 the first official release of the internet programming language Curl Contents Language was published. It was developed at the MIT and integrates the possibilities of several languages (HTML, Java, Javascript, LaTeX, Lisp) to produce interactive and resource-saving web pages. It can be easily combined with existing technologies.

Is this being used by large numbers of webmasters? Is it the next big thing, sanctioned by the W3C and all the browser makers? --branko

WWW Origins

Didn't the idea of the world wide web come from the military? Didn't they want to create a communication web that wouldn't be able to be brought down if our country was bombed with nukes? The government was concerned that if the center of our country was bombed there would be no way the east coast could communicate with the west coast. So they came up with the idea of having our communications in a grid or web pattern. If the center of our country was struck we could still communicate by going around the center using this new pattern. This was what I was taught, but I am not going to include it until someone varifies this b/c it could be wrong. ---Grant T

that's the net not the web -- Tarquin 23:57 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Right. The military funding for the Internet had nothing to do with anything like the web (except rather indirectly, because some of Englebart's funding came from DARPA many moons ago). Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, while this is often claimed to be the origin of the Internet, it only contains a grain of truth. Early research on decentralized packet networks did in part arise from concerns about keeping a military communications network running under physical attack. But ARPANET, which is generally held to be the seed from which the Internet grew, wasn't actually intended for that purpose; it was just a communications network for ARPA research centers. --24.147.149.53 13:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. The ARPANet is not the Internet, and the latter had different goals, some of which were military applications. See Talk:Internet#Internet and Nuclear Warfare survivability for more. Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dis-optimizing initialism

I wish I could think of an appropriate way to mention in this article a curious fact that was pointed out by Douglas Adams (and probably recognized by many others): "WWW" is possibly the only acronym in the English language that takes three times as long to say as the phrase that it's "short" for. :) -- Wapcaplet 12:48 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is an ever-annoying fact! Work it in somehow. I always say "dub dub dub" to ameliorate the problem.

That's probably the funniest thing I have heard today. It's funny because it's true. In Finnish, of course, we tend not to make a distinction between "v" and "w", so we just say "vee vee vee". 85.76.152.179 18:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

I deleted the paragraph saying that you could use the term "a web" for some arbitrary set of HTTP servers, because this term is certainly not in common usage. The ordinary usage of "web" has come to mean "The World Wide Web" with no ambiguity. The example cited would today be called "an intranet". tempshill

¡World-Wide is an Adjective!

We should move this page to World-Wide Web and make this page a redirect. Ŭalabio 04:06, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Sadly, I think it's too late to change the course of history. Noisy | Talk 15:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No it is not:

We just move the article to World-Wide Web and leave a redirect at world Wide Web.

It is as simple as πr^².

I have never seen World Wide Web with a hyphen. By the way, this is an English-language wiki; the upside-down exclamation point does not exist in English.

Whether you seen world-wide or not does not change the fact that it is the proper form. As for inverted punctuation, it is not prohibited, so it is compulsory, just like hyphenation of compound adjectives. Ŭalabio 07:39, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

The proper form of the word is generally worldwide, not world-wide or world wide. Granted, of course, usage has firmly established WWW as the abbreviation where it ought to have been WW (because of computer programmers' preference for intercaps). Tim Berners-Lee's early uses of the term -- as cited by the OED -- give it either as one long word in CamelCase (WorldWideWeb) or as hyphenated (World-Wide Web). It would be very nice if this article noted this problem in order to avoid promoting the incorrect usage of world wide elsewhere, and in order to assuage the occasional pedant, like me, who will be browsing the article for an explanation. -- Rbellin 17:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we both agree that the article is in the wrong place, we can move it.

Ŭalabio 00:02, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that the article needs to be moved. I've done some searching, and most if not all style guides seem to give "World Wide Web" as a unique proper name. I'd like a discussion of this in the article, but this seems to be a pretty well entrenched usage. -- Rbellin 18:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still believe that we should move the page, but also we should include a comment in the article that the proper term is WorldWide Web.

Ŭalabio 00:37, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

I disagree. The proper usage may be as you suggest - and I agree we should say so in the article - but the fact remains that the initialism WWW has convinced most people to write it as three words in English. Since that's the common usage, that's where the article should stay. Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At first I agreed with Ŭalabio, but after hearing what the OED and w3c (http://www.w3.org/) had to say, I think it should remain World Wide. Moogle

Note Code Project?

The term "Note Code Project" only occurs on this page and its mirrors, according to Google. Is this a real historical hypertext system, and, if so, can someone please provide a cite? -- Anon.

Removed the words "and the Note Code Project" until someone can provide a cite. -- Anon.

The Grid

Anyone know anything about The Grid - the future replacement for the present Web/Internet, currently being developed?

I've scoured the Internet (via Google) but to no avail - perhaps it's all so hush-hush that there's nothing been released about it yet....

I am assured that this is in development at CERN and is eventually intended to be a super-Internet for the next generation. Any further info would be appreciated - this should surely be mentioned in one of these articles. Agendum 08:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seek Internet2. Kim Bruning 11:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, but I think not. This is currently being developed at CERN in Geneva, although I think it may be being kept 'under wraps' at the moment....

Agendum 13:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very well, are you perhaps seeking Semantic Web then? Note that there is no such thing as "Web/Internet". Do you seek enlightenment on the future of the Web, the future of TCP/IP, or on the future of Internet? Kim Bruning 07:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you appear to be mistaken about a great many things. (It's a quote, roll with it). The grid CERN is working on is a system that uses the internet to connect computers together in new&interesting ways, and would be used alongside the web. Ie, it's not a replacement or an upgrade, but rather an addition. See this page: What is the Grid? (http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/whatisgrid/whatis.html).

For more information on Grids in general, see Grid computing. Kim Bruning 08:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1945

I recall one single document from I believe... the Manhattan project that described something WWW-ish. It was written at or near the end of the war, and discussed what all these bright folks might do now that they didn't need to be building nuclear weapons anymore. I've actually had the document in my browser before, but now I've lost it :-( . If it can be found back, that would push back the first date the web was thought of a bit ;-) If anyone beats me to it, leave a message on my talk please! Kim Bruning 11:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No cookies for anyone else, I got it! ;-)

Vannevar Bush, As We May Think (http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/~duchier/pub/vbush/vbush.shtml)

that diagram is misleading

I think the diagram at the top of this article is misleading. The first paragraph description speaks right off about the WWW not being centralized, yet that diagram shows a web centralized around the Wikipedia. Also, somewhere in the Wikipedia policies, there is advice to not emphasize the explicit mention of the Wikipedia within itself (that is, if there is a way to avoid self-reference, choose that way first). - Bevo 13:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. -- SGBailey 14:00, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

No, it shows the graph around the Wikipedia node. It's just a representation issue (i.e. how you draw the picture). But I agree any other example would be just as good, and wouldn't trigger the "no Wiki refs" issue. Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken - that diagram is actually a del.icio.us tag web. I mean yeah the WWW as a whole generally follows such a structure - but it is deffinatly not the same thing, it's a lot more random then that. I don't think the diagram is a good choice to begin with --24.85.48.41 07:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first web page

The links to "[2]" and "The first web page" don't go where you would expect from the link titles. -- SGBailey 14:00, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Publishing web pages

Just a nitpick, really, but a large part of the "Publishing web pages" section reads like a student trying to reach the word-length requirement on a paper. It probably could be half that length. I'm new here and don't want to stomp all over someone's (obviously) hard work, but the postmodernism stuff seems just a little over the top or off topic. Maybe it could be put in another article? Political or social effects of the WWW or something? -- EDS

Flaws in article, nominated for FA removal

I have listed this article on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Rationale is provided on that page. Fredrik | talk 19:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, for convenience I'll provide a copy of my comments here (modified to fit better on this page):

This article has several problems. Parts of it read way too much like an essay, with clear instances of POV and/or original, subjective interpretation ("these bold visions", "beyond text", also see "Publishing web pages" comment above). The overall structure is poor; the order and choice of sections seems arbitrary. For example, the "Java and Javascript" section should rather be called "Dynamic content", or something similar, and cover more than these two particular technologies. The section says nothing useful about what dynamic content is and what it is supposed to be good for. The "Sociological implications" section is vague and incomplete at best. Poor writing: many one-sentence paragraphs, missing wikilinks. Sub-standard choice of images. And perhaps the worst problem: this article is blatantly incomprehensive; there is almost nothing on types of websites, search engines, organization of the web and websites, the web's role in commerce, and probably many things I didn't think about. In my opinion, this article could use a rewrite from the ground up.

--Fredrik | talk 02:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

URL/URI

These are not different names for the same thing (although they are indeed very similar concepts). Do some grepping around in RFC's to find out the difference. Noel (talk) 06:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Citeseer

Don't we need to mention Citeseer ? -- Sundar 07:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be good. (Plus that new "Google for academics" thingy too, maybe? Go for it! Noel (talk) 21:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Why not have pictures that apply to the content of the article and have relevant meaning? Also, captions for those pictures that don't seeem to have any reason for being might nullify the previous statement. Also, how about a better lead section? Moogle

Original research

Does the following, from the section Publishing web pages not read like original research or an essay? I've italicised sections that do in my view. I've commented in indented bold italic.

The web is available to individuals outside mass media. In order to "publish" a web page, one does not have to go through a publisher or other media institution, and potential readers could be found in all corners of the globe. To some this represents an opportunity to enhance democracy by giving voice to alternative and minority views. Others took it as a path to anarchy and unrestrained freedom of expression. Yet others took it as a sign that a hierarchically organized society of which mass media is a symptomatic part, will be replaced by a so-called network society.

In addition, hypertext seemed to promote non-hierarchical and non-linear ways of expression and thinking. Unlike books and documents, hypertext does not have a linear order from beginning to end. It is not broken down into the hierarchy of chapters, sections, subsections, etc. This is reminiscent of the idea of Marshall McLuhan that new media change people's perception of the world, mentality, and way of thinking. While not unique to the web, hypertext in this sense is closely related to the notion of "death of author" and intertextuality in structuralist literary theory.

These bold visions are not fully realized yet. We can find both supporting and countering aspects of web usage.

First, regarding the increased global unity, it is true that many different kinds of information are now available on the web, and for those who wish to know other societies, their cultures and peoples, it became easier. When travelling in a foreign country or a remote town, one might be able to find some information about the place on the web, especially if the place is in one of developed countries. Local newspapers, government publications, and other materials are easier to access, and therefore the variety of information obtainable with the same effort may be said to have increased, for the users of the Internet.

At the same time, there are some obvious limitations. The web is so far a very text-centered medium, and those who are illiterate cannot make much use of it.

Text to speech? Images? The websites using a few bright graphics and words to link people to images, music, video, feeds?

Even among the literate, usage of a computer may or may not be easy enough. It has been known during the late 1990s, though with ample exceptions, that web users are dominantly young males in college or with a college degree.

References? Can this assertion be backed up?

Now the trend has been changing and females and the elderly are also using the web.

Ref?

Level of education and income are related to the web use, some think (See also: Digital divide).

Who? Ref.

Another significant obstacle is the language. :Make a more qualified assertion Although some websites are available in multiple languages, many are in the local language only. Also, not all software supports all special characters, and RTL languages. These factors would challenge the notion that the World Wide Web will bring a unity to the world.

Second, the increased opportunity to publish materials is certainly observable in the countless personal pages, as well as pages by families, small shops, etc., facilitated by the emergence of free web hosting services.

Yet not a small part of those pages seem to be either prematurely abandoned or one-time practice. Very few of those pages, even when they are well-developed, are popular. When it comes to the expression of ideas and provision of information, it seems that the major media organizations and those companies who became major organizations through their online operations are still favored by the dominant majority. In addition, the Web is not necessarily a tool for political self-education and deliberation. The most popular uses of the Web include searching and downloading of pornography, which perhaps have very limited effect in improving democracy. The most intensively accessed web pages include the document detailing the former President Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct with Monica Lewinsky, as well as the lingerie fashion show by Victoria's Secret. In sum, both in terms of writers and readers, the Web is not popularly used for democracy. While this is not enough to categorically reject the possibility of the Web as a tool for democracy, the effect so far seems to be smaller than some of the expectations for a quite simple reason, lack of interest and popularity. Anarchistic freedom of expression may be enjoyed by some, but many web hosting companies have developed their acceptable use policy over time, sometimes prohibiting some sensitive and potentially illegal expressions. And again, those expressions may not reach a great many. The web is still largely a hierarchical place, some argue.

A long series of unreferenced assertions, POV statements, and original commentary

Third, regarding non-linear and non-hierarchical structure of the Web, the effect of those on people's perception and psychology are still largely unknown.

What? - i.e. expand/reference debate, or cut

Some argue that our culture is changing to that of postmodernity, which is closely related to non-linear and non-hierarchical way of thinking, being, and even social organization. Yet the counter evidences are available as well. Among the most notable would be the existence of web directories and search engines.

Again, an linked assertion (check with postmodernism), and some unclear mumbo-jumbo.

Those sites often provide navigations to most popular sites to the visitors. In addition, it is quite obvious that many web sites are organized according to a simple hierarchy, having the "home page" at the top. At least the present state of the Web and web users seem to suggest the change has not been as great as envisioned by some.

This "hierarchical" debate is here for what purpose? Cleanup or remove it.

Does anyone wish to tackle this section? I'm removing it en-masse until someone sieves through it. It's really quite diabolical.

zoney ♣ talk 23:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "www" section

Any protests against having this section removed? I feel that pronunciation is outside the scope of the article, is largely irrelevant for those not in English-speaking countries, and that the article is long enough as it is.

What tricks various browsers try or don't try in order to resolve an address definitely does not belong. I suppose some mention of the "www prefix" and its decline might still be appropriate. (or maybe it should go in a larger context along with ftp, mail, ns, and other prefixes, dedicated boxes at company headquarters, etc)

-- magetoo 10:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that some native English speakers pronounce "www" as "wibble". But I've never heard anyone actually do so. Do people? 85.76.152.179 18:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's "largely irrelevant...".

I was pleased to see such a section; interesting, informative and nice as a (passing) acknowledgment of the multilingual nature of the web, which is a medium of exceptional value to lesser-used languages (but that's a topic for another page or so).

In Welsh speech WWW is frequently rendered as triple W - "W driphlyg" - pronounced roughly "oo-driphlig" in English orthography - which trips nicely off the tongue.

-- TheoB 02:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. If some of the external links are reliable sources and were used as references, they can be placed in a References section too. See the cite sources link for how to format them. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit&section=new) when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:World_Wide_Web"