|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
||This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
can't someone add in the fact that iWeb is a complete ripoff of RapidWeaver? I would, but i'm sure the arrogant wiki overlords would revert my edit. 18.104.22.168 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any edits that were made by you reverted. --Mboverload 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- also, don't attack editors. The reason yu can't just put in that it's a ripoff of RapidWeaver is that it's POV. It's not a RapidWeaver ripoff. Plenty of WYSIWYG website makers exist, RapidWeaver wasn't the first. I prefer RapidWeaver myself.
WTF is this? This article reads like an advertisement. Is WP in the business of promoting the sale of software products? More evidence that WP is becoming less and less of an encyclopedia (if it ever was one) and more like everything2. Retconn 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome to fix it. - mboverload
This section is funny:
- "Apple quickly reverted the page to its last good edit."
Sounds like some Wikipedian was a little over-zealous.
Shouldn't there be a section on iWeb's horrendous markup and disregard of semantics / web standards? 22.214.171.124 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't actually affect its target audience at all. Web standards are great. CSS makes it infinitely easier to make style changes to static websites, but when dynamic tools like this come in to play some of those benefits disappear. The most important thing is absolutely that the page renders as intended in web browsers. I would also like to add that while CSS is wide spread enough to be considered a standard, things like xhtml are only Standard Proposals from groups which are just offering their input on how the web should work and are by no right of any authority to demand anything from developers of websites or browsing tools. And they don't. So why are you so loaded about the issue? And which particular standard proposals are you upset iWeb isn't supporting fully? --126.96.36.199 11:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Target audience? Although the comments above are very old, I have to say that compliance with web standards is an integral part of any WYSIWYG HTML-generator and should be noted. The target audience of the program iWeb is not the same thing as the "target audience" of this wikipedia-article. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
iWeb, the web hosting provider
Should someone add the fact that the iweb.com domain and the iWeb trademark in Canada and the US is owned by Groupe iWeb Inc. / iWeb / iWeb.com, a web hosting provider.
It seems like there should be some kind of disambiguation. I actually stumbled onto this article because I was looking for an unbiased explanation of how iWeb.com and it's various blogs relate to Apple's iWeb tool that is part of iLife. — Cbedgar (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
That claim does not appear to be true. First, it would have been a trademark suit, not copyright. Second, hosting servers/colocation would not carryover into a WYSWYG software application, and thus would be separate trademark domains. Third, there is no mention of such a lawsuit & victory via Google or iweb.com's press releases. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-w3c-validator-research-2/#validated is it worth adding to the article that Apple iWeb has a really good percentage of websites created with standards in mind? Looking at Dreamweaver at 3% then iWeb at 80% is a pretty strong fact, but I'm not sure how it would fit into the article. Elpasi (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)