|Web browser has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
foo web browser
Who's been moving pages on web browsers to pages like Opera web browser and Chimera web browser? That is not standard page naming convention. Use the simple name, and disambiguation parentheses if required. The current form requires users to type "...[[Opera web browser|Opera]]. Most of these should be at "foo (browser)". -- Tarquin 00:12 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
- And these can be simply linked to like this: [[Opera (browser)|]] (no space between the bar and the last brackets) in order to look like this: Opera (cute trick).
- Indeed. That's the "pipe trick", fully documented on the FAQ & elsewhere. I'll be moving these back in a few days. -- Tarquin 10:39 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
tua mãe de 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest info from http://www.onestat.com/ as of May 28 2004
The most popular browsers on the web are:
1. Microsoft IE 6.0 69.3% 2. Microsoft IE 5.5 12.9% 3. Microsoft IE 5.0 10.8% 4. Mozilla 2.1% 5. Opera 7.0 1.02% 6. Microsoft IE 4.0 0.6% 7. Safari 0.71%
Statistics like this are pointless without a date. As of March 2006 MS must dream of returning to such dominance!
IE and HTTP 1.1
Does anyone know exactly what this sentence is referring to? HTTP/1.1 has its own required standards which Internet Explorer does not fully support, but most other current-generation web browsers do. I thought about reverting this when it first appeared a month or two ago as POV Microsoft bashing, but I don't actually know that it's not true (and I suspected there would be plenty of Microsoft apologists ready, willing, and able to defined IE's "good" name if the statement indeed was not true). It has survived several edits to this section of the article so I'm starting to suspect it IS true. Just curious. -- Rick Block 15:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure either. I think I've heard something to that effect, and it wouldn't surprise me. I would just leave it there until someone can refute it. zoney ♣ talk 16:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I found a related mention in the IE article (when in doubt, look it up in Wikipedia!) and I've included a link. -- Rick Block 20:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stuff that was above the Toc
As far as accuracy goes, I'm not sure that the first paragraph is correct. A web-browser can support more than just HTML files. It can directly display images, XML, plain text and more. Modern web-browsers are fully extensible. IE: Macromedia has a plugin for internet explorer and netscape navigator that allows the browser itself to render SWF files without having these files wrapped in an HTML file. And with non-HTTP protocals, the browser can act as a generic client, not a document-viewer. For example, IE5 and above can connect to an FTP server and allow the user to create folders, remove files, drag and drop files/folders to and from the server and so on with a graphical interface. Netscape and Mozilla have similar abilities.
I think a web browser can be more accurately described as an extensible network client and document editor/viewer specializing in the HTTP protocal and HTML document format.
Just my $0.02. --Rlee0001 16:02 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)
- Well, if it does more than just that, then it's a program with web-browser-like capabilities, isn't it? --Colonel E 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is the first paragraph: "A Web browser is a piece of software that enables a user to retrieve and render HTML documents from Internet servers around the world. This network of documents is known as the World Wide Web."
In this paragraph, a web browser is defined in terms of what the web is, namely a network of HTML documents.
Just as one would not define an automobile in terms of what a car is besides an automotive vehicle, it could be argued that a web browser should be defined by its primary function, with other possible functions listed later on.
If something can browse HTML documents on the web, it is called a web browser. However, it is not necessary that a web browser can browse ftp sites: if it cannot, it is still called a web browser.
If we would redefine the term web browser as a tool that can do everything from the original definition plus browse ftp sites, then all tools that can browse web sites but cannot browse ftp sites would drop out of the definition of 'web browser', which IMO would be undesirable.
If you define the world wide web as a network of HTML and XHTML documents, then you could redefine a web browser as something that can browse (X)HTML documents on the web. --user:Branko
This section has a fairly long paragraph that takes a fairly severe tone on microsoft for bundling their browser in with windows. Then in the very same sentence that admit Mac does the same it uses the talks about adding to the "Apple Experiance". Either that needs to be clipped off or a bit should be added onto the windows section talking about the advantages of all curated software suites. ...or maybe just add a link to a page on internet advertising. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)