Talk:Web development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Rewrite of Web Development and Web Design articles[edit]

The current articles for Web development and Web design have been listed in Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_rewrite. To facilitate this process, I am creating subpages of the Talk pages for the each article, named Web development (rewrite) and Web design (rewrite). Initially these two pages will be stubs only, while I take stock of the existing material offline. I hope to post some progress before the end of 2006.

My plan is to improve the content in four stages:

  1. Provide a high level taxonomy of the subject area;
  2. Reorganize the existing content according to that structure;
  3. Edit and improve the existing material where appropriate;
  4. Add missing material where it's needed.

That is the plan; in its execution, there will be some overlap within steps 2-4. And we can actually decide to replace the existing pages at any time after stage #2 is complete.

If you want to contribute content or suggestions, then please use the (rewrite) pages only for proposed new or updated content which is intended to eventually replace the existing pages. All discussion should be placed on the two talk pages. During the rewrite process, any internal links between the two artcles should use the names with the (rewrite) extensions. If the structure is right, I don't anticipate having too many such cross-references. So I plan to edit them manually when we eventually replace the current articles.

Chris Loosley 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks article on Web Development[edit]

As of December 27, 2006, the Wikibooks article on Web development consists mostly of a taxonomy of the subject area. However, since I do not agree with a lot of it, I am not going to reproduce it in this Wikipedia article rewrite. But I am also not volunteering to edit anything in Wikibooks. If this inconsistency causes problems, please raise them here. Chris Loosley 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to other articles[edit]

I view Web development as a particular instance of a Software development process, which is itself a Wikipedia category comprising many articles. I intend to reflect these relationships in the structure and content of the rewritten article. Chris Loosley 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between development process and methodology[edit]

I know that many informal approaches to Web development do not identify as distinct activities each task of the more formal software development processes. Nonetheless, I believe that a formal software development process identifies a collection of tasks that are essential to the production of effective software. So while people may adopt many different methodologies (or approaches) for addressing the work, those essential tasks must still be performed -- somehow, by someone -- during any development process. By addressing this distinction in the rewrite, I plan to cover both small-scale and large-scale Web development. Chris Loosley 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Website development companies have now also started using the agile development methodology for development, along with the more popular traditional waterfall methodology.

Ridiculous picture[edit]

The picture at the top of this article is ridiculous. Two guys in front of a computer that is being used for some ambiguous task has little to do with web development. Obviously, you need sentient beings to do web development and they probably would be using a computer, but, that seriously doesn't warrant the use of the current image.

I agree because I don't see how web development can be properly illustrated, specially using a photo with two guys looking at a screen. --Goa103 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Links[edit]

"15:28, 5 February 2006 Reisio (rv last - no way in hell :p)" Why? Those are all good web development links taken from http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=DesignerDeveloperBlogs --Emil Stenström 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's take a little survey...
  • Douglas Bowman
This is a personal design site, so it's advertising whether intended or not. Looking at his front page right now I see information about a Mac OS X program, stuff about odd jobs he's had in the past, and some personal stuff about hurting his back.
  • Andy Budd
Oooh, ads and selling of books...with a little something about Apple (computer) stuff, some stuff he had in the past, a survey about what it takes to be a "web design superhero".
  • Dan Cederholm
Four things again (both Bowman and Budd had this, too), information about ukuleles, a lot of personal information, links to books he's written which you can purchase (big surprise) and oh...he mentions HTML - ya he talks about how he switched from using #ccc to #f5f5f5 or something.
  • Mike Davidson
This blog, described as "a running commentary of occasionally interesting things" (not web design), has the typical portfolio and personal advertising stuff as well as...some stuff about Google Maps, an entry on the 'four things' thing condemning them, but still wasting space talking about them, stuff about iPod giveaways, and some stuff about "Newsvine" - something with a website that explains jack.
  • Jon Hicks
Another design site (meaning the main purpose is to generate work). On the front page we have a list of clients and recent jobs. On the "journal", we have what looks like the same Apple iTunes plugging that Budd had, stuff about kilts, and another entry on memes (like the 'four things' everyone above has an entry on).
  • Molly Holzschlag
French people are mean, Flash is silly, it's so tough flying around the world and being insulted, spam is bad...'four things' _again_, how blogging is a PITA, and a whole bunch of other stuff not even worth mentioning.
  • Roger Johansson
Internet Explorer is bad, 'four things' YET again, announcement about awards for blogs...go figure, personal stuff, stuff about Apple hardware, a bunch of ads and invitations to pay him.
  • Eric Meyer
IE7 is a PITA, jet lag, 'four things' EVEN YET again, a bunch of useless personal stuff and big surprise some more stuff about Apple wares.
  • Dave Shea
Jet lag (you poor souls), info about a site he was paid to do, stuff about how Flash is no more, 'seven things' this time, Photoshop annoyances and JavaScript animation.
  • Emil Stenström
Whoa, 'four things' - again? Big surprise. Portfolio & CV to sell work, mimicing frames, chatting about code.google.com, poker websites.
  • Simon Willison
JavaScript stuff, lots of personal stuff & commentary on base.google.com.
  • Jeffrey Zeldman
Plugging alistapart.com, 'four things' (I'm serious, yet again), iTunes stuff (yet again), a few _links_ to information on buzzwords, XHTML & CSS, and Flash, plugging books, and a lot more ALA propaganda.
What we've learned (in order of importance, most important first):
  • How to put money in these people's pockets by just giving it to them or hiring them or buying their books, etc.
  • A lot of personal information, with a recurring theme of jet lag complaining and a goofy 'internet meme' usually called 'four things'
  • Apple and iTunes are great, yippee go get them!
  • Google stuff is neat - go look at it!
  • Internet Explorer is stupid
  • Flash is stupid
  • some tidbits about JavaScript, some about mimicing frames...and how to make a poker site template
Now...I admit, knowing that IE & Flash are stupid is useful information - but we could just put that in the article. Everything else that might be considered useful that is actually in-depth is completely dwarfed by the irrelevant rest.
m:When should I link externally#Blog links: when? has a good comment about this, too. ¦ Reisio 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


reisio:, I agree that in general, blog links don't belong here. However, even with personal posts here and there, those bloggers are driving much of the innovation in the web industry today. They are certainly not the kinds of blogs JFW refers to on the page you reference. I think giving beginners who are interested a list of good blogs to learn from is not a bad idea. Perhaps a List of web professional's blogs (or something) would be a better place? Also, Emil:, it's generally considered bad form to post self-promoting links. Even if you do post lists of standards bloggers, let someone else put you in if they think it's appropriate. - Crenner 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I might consider Hicks & Meyer as innovative influences, the rest are just bloggers. ¦ Reisio 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
@Crenner: yes, that was stupid of me. @Reisio: I think they are all personal _and_ web development bloggers but I see if you only want sources that are only dedicated to the subject at hand. Thanks for a good explaination. --Emil Stenström 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to Web Developer Resource Index. For the rest of the editors of this page, please have a look and contact me if you have reservations. I think it's appropriate. Please take a little time and not just a cursory glance. Also, I'd be happy to contribute to this page, and there are some grammatical errors that need fixing. DClifton 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Specific Information[edit]

The following statement "The web development industry is expected to grow over 20% over the next 5 years" has no citation and no indication of when this statement was made. 5 years from what date? --Bradley Holt 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of dollars?![edit]

Keke mokone from Koppies (KWAKWATSI) is now the best web developer ever!

"you can now develop a website with only a few hundred dollars." - this is surely incorrect - web sites can be developed with FAR less than a few hundred dollars!

WTF?[edit]

Above is an example of someone who has never designed a website. Think about purely mathmatically if you design websites for $100 each you will have to design 400 websites a year. That just isn't possible.

He said "develop a website with" less than a few hundred dollars, not "develop for". There's a difference between the cost of designing a website and the amount the designer needs to charge to support him/herself. I think the above commentator is trying to say that you don't need to have hundreds of dollars to design a website yourself. You can probably use free tools and cheap hosting to develop a website for less than $100.
Actually there is a divergence. It is getting cheaper for an amateur to develop an amateur site because the WYSIWYG tools are getting better and cheaper. At the same time the cost of a serious, professionally-developed site is increasing at a substantial rate (not counting the pick-a-template sort of providers.) A distinction should be made here between do-it-yourself activities and the sort of work done by professionals. Else it is easily misleading.

Random contributor: It is not Wikipedia's job to define the markets equilibrium price for Web development. And if you do so, cite sources. You are guessing at what the real value of development is. I charge £200 per day working for an SME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.119.23 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup required[edit]

Web development may be related to websites or an intranet, yet it is more related to the user end comprehension of transmitted data between computers, and the compatibility of communications or end results, meaning that attempts to display any information accessed on the web will look the same from any other access point. The entire article is written in a way that will tend to lead unfamiliar readers to think that web development is all about websites and website development. Websites and website development are components of web development, certainly not the primary functionality, or priority.

The World Wide Web is more of a software program distributed through the Internet. Future websites will exist outside the WWW or Http in the advent of new communication technologies that communicate information between computers differently than preset methods.

When the cost of a website is mentioned.... yes, a website can be created for less than a thousand dollars. More accurately, the cost of access to the internet.

To more accurately and appropriately give web development the credit it deserves, a history of the meaning of the word web, and that it was considered a birth from hypertext, leading to HTTP://WWW, might help establish it's origin and vast nature.

Throwing more little components of web development as if they are the key driving factor and most relevant aspect does not give the article justice. --Levi Porter (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


This article needs some serious work. The initial paragraph is okay(ish), but the Web Development as an industry section needs serious work, at the moment it's just an undiffentiated block of text. The focus on the history of web development is also a little weird - I suggest that that could be sepearted out into it's own subheading.

The see also section is way too long. I suggest splitting it into sections. Artw 17:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure splitting it would improve it. I think most internal links should be removed. For example instead of listing programming languages like Java and PHP, we could simply write "Programming languages are used to implement...". See the External links for more info. So sad there isn't a See also article yet. I'm planning to write one for the french Wikipedia. --Goa103 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I've split it up a little bit and added a small section on security. In my opinion, it looks much easier to read for now. Hopefully others will feel the same! 86.3.80.185 13:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Web development process[edit]

Well, what would we like to see in this article? I personally would like to know more about the lifecycle process. For example, I have enough software development experience to know about different development methodologies. But I don't have enough web development experience to know about the process that web development teams typically use. DRogers 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It;d be pretty hard to generalise. Aproaches I've seen vary from attempts at Agile, to badly implemented waterfall model to no methodology at all. In general I'd say the lighter-wight and less formal a methodolgy is the more useful is likely to be in a web dev enviroment, but that if you have no method at all your project will end up in development hell forever. That;s just personal observation of course. Artw 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Web development processes are widely used by french web development companies and I'm sure foreign companies use them as well. Their use is not obvious on minor projects like a personal websites but when it comes to web applications or portals, web development is as complex as software development. That's why processes are important. For example Pascal Roques wrote the UML : Modéliser un site e-commerce (UML : Design and develop an e-commerce website) book where he explains how the Unified Process (UP) can be used to better manage web development projects, to apply software development processes to the Web. An other of his books even introduced us to the 2TUP process, a lightweight version of UP. Jim Conallen also wrote Building Web Applications with UML and I think Pascal Roques largely got his knowledge from this book, as it was one of the first to take up the topic. Note that eXtreme Programming (XP) is also an other widely used development process, both for softwares and web applications. Applying XP to the Web is covered in the french l'eXtreme Programming : Avec deux études de cas (XP : With two case studies) book but I'm sure one of Kent Beck's books took up the topic first. Also note that there's no need for a Web development process article because softwares were there first. The main differences I see between software and web development is that you use different tools and technologies, and that the media is different. Softwares are for the desktop, web applications for the Web. But as the Web is getting more and more mature every year, I'm sure there will soon be no differences between the two worlds. David and Goliath ? --Goa103 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, given the much quicker pace of the web world, agile methods seem more suited than traditional, more formal and ceremonial methods. DRogers 12:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This Web Project Life Cycle that may add some value to this article. It addresses a web project at a higher level and doesn't get into the detailed specifics of any given technology. It's a good resources for steps marketers should consider when undertaking a web project. Adkoon 22:20, June 4, 2008 (PST)

Category?[edit]

Web Development should be categorized. Suggestions?

That's a tricky question because in english it seems Web design and development stands for Web creation. In french we have the Conception de sites Web (Websites creation) article for it. It's even trickier because Conception can also mean Design in an other context. Moreover design is more related to the visual appeal (Graphics, CSS...), not the backend. Worst it seems most people don't make any differences between Web development and programming. IMHO programming is part of developing. So Web development includes designing and programming Web applications (Services, websites...). The same goes for software development. First you design, then you program (implement). So I think the article should have its own category, like the Web design article as the Web design category. The idea would be to create categories like Web development, Web programming... I think separating topics is important, as it's essential to separate the presentation from the business logic for example. --Goa103 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Web application development ?[edit]

The result is no consensus to merge. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am pro merger with Web application development. --Avochelm 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the average person looking up the term 'web development' is most likely seeking information on the construction of web sites. 'Web application development' is a much more restrictive term. --Pleistocene

I agree. Web delopment isn't only the development of Web applications. And Web development is not Web engineering; it may sound more formal but it is called Web development - no arguments! 78.105.119.23 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)craig dot fairhurst at youds.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.119.23 (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. In my planned rewrite (see above), I will position Web development as the umbrella term for this domain, with links to more restrictive subsets such as Web design and Web application development. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion during the rewite process. Chris Loosley 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote against the Merger. They are simply different! I don't recomend a merger. Someone can be a good web developer, but know squat about web application development, also true vise-versa.

Web application development can require a vast amount of programming skills, where as a good web developer needs to know other skills which can include search engine optimization skills and what's best for their client and their visitors. Webcitypages 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To reach your conclusion, you must assume a narrow definition of the term "Web developer". In my opinion, the subject of Web development includes Web design and Web application development. Just because some Web developers don't know about programming does not mean programming is not a component of Web development. Some software developers don't know about about HTML or ASP.NET, but those topics are still aspects of software development. Chris Loosley 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Merge: Web development may include business strategy, licensing, domain registry, hardware configuration, bandwidth acquisition, and administrative functions unique to the web, but not normally associated with web (software) application development. Oicumayberight 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the argument you give above. I believe we need to retain a separate article about Web Applications, but not another one about their development. Not every Web site is a Web application, but those that are Web applications will, when being developed, require all those activities you listed. I simply don't agree with any definition of development (of Web sites or Web applications, or any other significant application of computing technology) that excludes essential process/management activites. If a brick amd mortar company wants to do business online, they have to develop an online application. That development process involves many more inter-connected people, processes, and activities than just "software developers" (engineers) writing and testing some code. Chris Loosley 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest excluding anything. If anything I was including the management activities in web development. Neither was I suggesting another article about "web application development". Web development is the umbrella topic for web design and web application development. "Web design" primarily focuses on the web site as an interactive medium. "Web application development" focuses on software engineering issues of web applications. The only thing I suggested with my post is that "web application development" stay a separate topic about web software engineering and "web development" includes the broader management issues on the page if not in separate articles. We have to think about who would be reading these articles. Executives will not be concerned with the nuts and bolts of web development as much as the overall nature of the business.
  • Web development should be about general web development issues including the business, written primarily for business entrepreneurs, managers, and executives.
  • Web design should be everything to consider when designing web sites, written primarily for designers.
  • Web application development should be everything about developing software for the web, written primary for software engineers and system technicians.
Oicumayberight 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We are not communicating. I think it's because you are not assuming the normally understood meaning of the adjective "application" in this context. In the vernacular, a Web application is a collection of software that includes a Web front-end and that enables transactions (exchanges of information) with users. In contrast, a collection of static information that you can read on the Web is simply a Web site. For example, WP is a Web application, as is any online business site like Amazon.com. But many smaller "brochure" sites are not applications.
So IMO, Web application development is simply a special case of Web development. Adding the adjective "application" does not allow us to drop discussion of any aspect or stage of the development process -- in fact, applications are usually the largest and most complex Web deliverables, which demand the most attention at all stages of development. Furthermore, creating a sophisticated Web presence, even if it is "only" a static site, can also involve software development activities (e.g. implementing and maintaining a complex information architecture using database technology) that you want to classify under "Web application development".
Hence my comments about "any kind of development," and my conclusions that (a) we didn't need "another" page (about something that is just a subtype of Web development), and (b) you wanted to create a description of development (Web application development) that excluded development concerns. Chris Loosley 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your proposed taxonomy, the scheme may be OK, but I don't like your names. So in my view:
  • General web development issues including the business, written primarily for business entrepreneurs, managers, and executives -- this is NOT Web development, but I'm not sure what you'd call it. I'm also not likely to write it. I see that we already have articles about e-business and e-commerce. But we could perhaps spin off some of the current material about the Web development industry into a separate article.
  • Everything to consider when designing web sites, written primarily for designers -- this is Web design as you say.
  • Everything about developing software for the web, written primarily (but not exclusively) for software engineers and system technicians -- this is what I envisage having under Web development when we get done with the rewrite, including the merger of what's in Web application development today. It will include short sections on the design-related topics, which point to web design. Chris Loosley 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we are that far apart in our views. Correct me if I've misunderstood you, it seems we agree that there shouldn't be a merge, that web application development is a narrower separate focus than web development, and apart from web design. Oicumayberight 03:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have misunderstood me altogether; please re-read the argument in my two previous posts. Yes, Web application development is a subset of all Web development, but it's not the kind of subset that requires a separate article, just as the subject of building mansions would not require a separate article from a general one about building houses. First, the overall building process is identical, when viewed at a general level. Second, there are already articles that describe a mansion as a particular form of house, and that is enough to explain any differences in the building process. A mansion may have a 5-car garage, and fountains in the front courtyard, but those are details that don't change the overall building process. Here, a Web application is a particular (and complex) type of Web-based software, but if we have an article about the overall process Web development, it will still cover Web application development. The present articles, and all the discussions about these topics, support this point of view. Chris Loosley 05:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I see web development as a topic too broad and important to get diluted with technobabble. Technology is the means, not the ends. To use your "house", analogy merging web application development with web development would be like merging housing construction with housing development or real estate development. Maybe the "web application development" page should be renamed "web software development" (or something to the effect) and then left alone. Oicumayberight 06:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can justify dismissing a carefully worded technical explanation of the commonly accepted meanings of technical terms as "technobabble" while at the same time claiming that your non-technical and contrary interpretation of the same terminology is the right one. I am not making this stuff up -- see for example [1] and [2]. And your analogies involving the broader "housing development" and "real-estate development" topics would correspond to the relationships between Web development, software development, and the software industry. Thus they are not relevant to my use of an analogy regarding the relationship between building houses and mansions. Chris Loosley 07:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not dismissing anything. I'm trying to be more inclusive then what I'm seeing from many of these experts in what they believe is an isolated discipline who want to design in a vacuum. I should have used the term jargon instead of technobabble. My point was, it's a foreign language to those who are not technicians, which they would consider technobabble even if every word was necessary. It was in no way meant to imply that a technical interpretation of the subject is wrong or less valid.
What I'm trying to avoid is that foreign language use to describe a broader more common issue. A person doesn't need to hear about programming languages to understand the same concepts in problem solving that the languages were designed to solve. A person doesn't need to read about hydrogen and oxygen to understand the usefulness of water. A page about web development should be about broad issues and link to the detailed components of the issues.
I envision a page starting with the business issues unique to web development (not too different from the current one), then some explanation of the components of a website and their uses (not the technology of the components), and finally the various roles and sub-disciplines like information technology, Information systems, software engineering, web design, project management, and content development. The only things that need to be said about technology are the simple uses of the basic components like server, dynamic web page, streaming media, without going into design topics. Talk about programing languages and you lose most of the people who should be reading it. You don't need to talk about SQL to talk about database integration. Oicumayberight 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you are trying to do. And (again) I agree with all of the above except for one thing. In your list of topics that fall "below" the article about all aspects of Web development (defined inclusively and written in non-technical language as you propose), you do not include a lower-level article that correspnds to what I think of as "Web development".
The problem I'm trying to fix (in the Web development rewrite I'm working on) is that no article covers the technical aspects of the Web development process. Instead, we have bits of that information in Web application development and in Web design, neither of which is the right place, because each should address just a subset, and -- as I argued above -- I don't believe we would even need the first of those subsets if we had the "Web development" article I envisage.
So maybe the solution is for the rewritten material to end up in a new article called Web development process, and a disambiguation scheme to re-route people (like me) who look for that information under Web development. Thoughts? Chris Loosley 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages for broad usage terms are always a good idea. Web development process similar to the software development process article may work.
Another useful page may be Web development technology exclusively to discuss hardware, software technology, including programming languages, without web design procedures. That may have been the original goal of the web application development page. I see your point that "application" has broader meaning than "software", however when I follow the first links on that page, they lead right to application software and software engineering. Oicumayberight 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As for e-busness and e-commerce, those focuses are broader than the web, and even the internet. I predict that if the web development article doesn't at least link the web development business related articles, the term (not the page) will become a territorial battle on the wikipedia, and the page will not get the attention that it deserves. There's much more to innovation than technology. Oicumayberight 03:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all these points. I'm just not volunteering to write those "business related articles," which I view as Web-specific subsets of the e-business and e-commerce articles, as those terms are presently defined here. But if someone decides how to break out the Web-related aspects of those topics, then "Web development" can easily link to those articles. Chris Loosley 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge The subjects are strongly related, there is a great deal of commonality, but most importantly the Web application development article is much better (better organized, written, referenced, etc). Merging will not only remove needless duplication, but hopefully improve the quality of the content. In the future they can always be split again. --Ronz 16:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that Web development isn't only Web application development. craig dot fairhurst at youds.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.119.23 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Do you agree with the proposed reorganization arising from my conversation above with Oicumayberight? If so, we would begin by creating an article for Web development process, and merge Web application development into it, using the present content from Web application development as a starting point for the new article. Then we would make that new article the target of the rewrite of Web development, by adding new material, and moving across some existing material from Web design.

The present Web development article would remain as a broader (and much less technical) umbrella for the subject area. This would produce a structure for Web-related subject matter that parallels that of software development, software design, and software development process, and could inherit from those articles as appropriate. It doesn't help that the present content of software design is still inappropriate for that article and needs fixing, but I believe the overall structure is sensible. Chris Loosley 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - They both mean different things, one should be about building a web application (developing) whilst this article is more Web Development in general. Amlder20 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Losing Dominance -I think web development is losing its charm slowly but gradually. It took us,designers at www.promotions-city.com months to learn all major 5 proffesional softwares to develop websites. Now with the coming of new softwares which are cheap and easy to use interface makes any normal layman create a website in few days time. Except from creating rich web applications which requires experience this profession has begin to lose its dominance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicobahrain (talkcontribs) 13:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Image missing WHATWG[edit]

File:Web_development_timeline.png shows XHTML2 WG as the last action of W3C. XHTML2 WG is effectively dead (they're wrapping up some last non-XHTML bits). WHATWG and HTML5 WG needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.200.181 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Web_development_timeline.png shows Ruby as being drafted 10 years before its first release!. This is ridiculous.78.105.119.23 (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)craig .dot fairhurst@ youds.com File:Web_development_timeline.png shows AJAX as being "possible" in 1996 when it was not so, as browser uptake of XMLHttpRequest was not wide spread enough.

Merge with Web engineering[edit]

The result of this discussion is to not merge. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm against this request. Because web development has two definitions: first one is of wider range and includes web designing and etc. The second one is only about markyp and coding. so there is no need of merging the article. I mean we can improve the web engineering article, but there is no need of merging them under web engineering. --Wayiran (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • oppose Far too different. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose, and I think the discussion is resolved. Can I remove the "Merge" infobox? Jesus Presley (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Typical Areas[edit]

Client Side Coding part does not include basic languages and standards like SGML, XML, HTML, XHTML, CSS, XSL and so on. These should be covered.90.185.64.244 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2013[edit]

Web development

Omsatyamtechnologies (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:EL, WP:ELNO and WP:SPAM. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Links to other language Wiki pages[edit]

Could an editor please add the foreign language wiki links? Here is the page in Spanish for example: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desarrollo_web — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.57.100 (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)