Talk:World Wide Web

Java and JavaScript

Java and JavaScript are way too specific for an article about the Web as a whole. If we devoted sections to these then we'd also have to devote sections to Flash, Silverlight, VBScript, CSS, SVG, XML, etc. Much better to instead have just one section that talks about web pages in general and the content they made contain. I've started this section off by merging the content from the Java and JavaScript sections, but it will need lots more rewriting to be up to par. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Section removed. I moved JavaScript part up to Ajax. The Java bit was an apology more than anything useful. You're welcome to do your rewriting but I think not needed as it was and it has been a month. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Section : CHACHING

??? random section about minor point??? 79.181.122.28 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More than 1 billion internet users now online

Maybe it could worthj mentioning? "Comscore, a company that tracks internet usage, calculates that 1 billion people who logged on to the world wide web in December 2008 – the first time this number have ever been online in a single month." Source: [1] 84.210.63.90 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

World Wide Web - Dispute of sites

I have been trying to find where to contact if there is a rogue type of site that was originally set-up with permission, relationship terminated, but control of the site is continuing without authorization utilizing information prior to the desolution of the business relationship? Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.2.34 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Web with a capital W

I know it's been done to death, as has the I on internet, but there seems to be some overkill here by those who love their capital Ws. First, please note that a small w for the web now seems to be universal in print and in the press in the UK, so this is only under discussion because someone somewhere has already established that the web is mostly American and so this article should use US spelling conventions.

First, what does this unreferenced sentence mean? "Additionally, Web (with a capital W) is used to indicate its status as an abbreviation", found under 'WWW prefix'?

Second, can we agree that, even if THE Web is a grand thing, even more important than the sun, that needs a capital letter, there are other uses of the the word in this article that do not even refer to THE Web. I refer to adjectival uses. So can we do without the capital on some or all of these? Web server, Web page, Web languages, Web resources, Web sites, Web addresses, Web beacons, Web standards, Web content, Web technology, Web searches, Web response times, Web traffic and Web editor.

One logical reason for this (apart from asking who capitalises adjectives anyway?) is that even if THE Web needs capitalising, then many people including web designers and web authors hold, at home and at work on their computers many potential web things that are not part of THE grand, unified Web. These may include a web server, several web pages, written in future web languages (like HTML 5), that are not publicly available web resources, parts of potential web sites... you get my drift - items from all of the above list that are web-like but not part of the grand public World Wide Web.

So can I go ahead and tone this capitalisation down a bit? --Nigelj (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left this note here for best part of a month, and now gone ahead and done as described. I also removed that baffling, unsourced sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed Issues

It's entirely unclear what is meant by "speed issues", "latency", and "response times" in this article. Are we talking about time to ping the webserver, connect to the web service, get the page headers, get partial content, get the entire page, or get the entire page with all embedded elements completely rendered? Presumably time to return the entire body, but that's an educated guess rather than what the page informs me of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.246.209 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC) No, latency means how long (after a browser asks a web server for something... anything, really) does it take for a web server to respond. The more time (generally measured in miliseconds) it takes for the server to respond, the higher the latency. When latency is high, that means that the server either cannot cope woith the number of requests per second it is reciving, or or it means that the browser's connection to the internet is slow. Since latency times can varry dynamicly due to changing circumstances of loading on the server, latency goes up and down all the time for any particular web page, even if the web page content might remain static (or not, as the case may be). Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

alternatives to the www. prefix

I was hoping this page would mention, or link to a page listing, common other url prefixes besides www. I'm thinking of m. myself. Mathiastck (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? Addressing Schemes. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Mathiastck was talking about the 'www' in, for example http://www.w3.org, rather than the 'http'? If so, the answer is that there is no technical 'meaning' to this whatsoever. The people who created the site could have chose any combination of valid characters, or none at all. For example http://w3.org, http://people.w3.org, http://www2.ibm.com, http://123.example.org, http://en.wikipedia.org and, indeed, http://m.example.org are all valid, although no website may have actually been published using some of them. The http part (the scheme) has a precise technical meaning, and the last two (or three, in e.g. http://a.b.co.uk) parts (the domain) have to be registered and paid for with a valid domain name authority, but the bit between these two parts is entirely up to the publisher of the site. This is covered in World Wide Web#WWW prefix and in more detail in URL and URI scheme#Generic syntax, although it does get complicated as you dig deeper and none of these really tackle the simplest cases, I don't think. Maybe we should make the basics clearer, here or somewhere? --Nigelj (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please?

Could a few other experienced editors have a look at Global Internet usage and its recent Talk? I am a bit worried by the low quality of this article, but would appreciate other input. --Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation?

The opening sentence named "www" an abbreviation for "world wide web." While this may be true in written English, it's hardly true in spoken English. Maybe a better word than abbreviation can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.55.67 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In this instance (indeed, in most instances) the word abbreviation does not refer to the number of syllables when spoken aloud; it refers to abbreviating a series of words to initial letters. So www (in capitals or in lowercase) is indisputably an abbreviation of the noun-phrase world wide web. As an aside, it's a shame TBL didn't think about the convoluted multi-syllable spoken pronunciation when he hit on the name. But then no-one gets everything right ;) 87.115.111.76 (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by Net News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.190.118 (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Web is dead?

The Web is Dead. So is the PC. So What? by Michael Miller. I think there is a need to address this concern to this wiki page. Komitsuki (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Cailliau

I think Robert Cailliau is not getting the credit he deserves in this article. So far I have not seen any other article about the subject that does not portray the creation of the World Wide Web as a coordinated effort of the two. I wonder if some anglospheric bias is at work here. I strongly suggest to improve the article in this regard.

The Web - how to write?

Is it not wrong to write "web browser" without capitalisation of the first letter? The "Web browser" would be the right way I suppose, as the word Web stays for the one World Wide Web. Sae1962 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See the section above under "Web with a capital W" for an explanation of why "The Web" and "web browser" are different things. Personally I don't think it needs capitalising at all, since I wouldn't write "the Web" any more than I would write "the Telephone Network".

Privacy article

I belive it is biased because it says things like "consumers save time and money." How would we change this part of the article. Should it be wikified?90.214.102.10 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I added bits of protocol and markup to #Function section

I added simplified actual HTTP request, response, and basic HTML for Wikipedia's WWW page itself to the #Function section in rev 416122559. It's computer code that lengthens the section, but I think it's important to show the underlying software for what billions of us use every day isn't arcane rocket science, just mumbo-jumbo syntax around some basic concepts. So I hope the powers that be allow this substantial change to survive. It would be nice to be able to say that "One of the reasons for the ascendance of the World Wide Web over other hypertext systems is its relative simplicity and use of somewhat human-readable text for HTTP, HTML and URLs", but I don't have a citation for that claim. -- Skierpage (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear definition

Is there any official definition of WWW? The article isn't particularly clear about what WWW is. --Sigmundur (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)