Jump to content

Talk:World Wide Web/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Hello please change the link under references number 26. (dead link) to http://www.ejoni.com/blog-the-world-wide-web-722 . thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielejoni (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your suggestion. The link you suggested would not be appropriate as a reference, because it is a rogue copy of the archived content on a commercial website; I have updated the link to the actual archived version of the original URL instead. --bonadea contributions talk 22:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Alternative image

A more complete image of the first webserver:

©Geni (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

visualizations of the world wide web

user:kbrose reverted my contribution of a graphic depicting a visualization of the largest publically available world wide web crawl c.f.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wide_Web&oldid=665200196 I am confused because the article Internet also has a visualization and in my oppinion there is inherent encyclopedic value to preserve such a graphic which was contributed to the free knowledge base by a researcher. I would like to hear what others have to say. The graphic in question can be found on: File:Visualization_of_the_world_wide_web_common_crawl_2012.png --Renepick (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The graphic frankly shows very little if anything useful. It's even hard to see just what it is that is there. How does this add value to the article? Just what does it actually show and what is the meaning of it? The fact that the Internet article has another one of these useless gimmicks, is not an argument for inclusion. Kbrose (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
why don't you remove this useless gimmick from the other article then? Since we are two authors of opposite opinion I would love to hear what others have to say? These kind of visualizations are being created over the time in the research community and give people an impression of the topology of the web graph (though visualizing such a large graph can obviously only be an approximation) it is the same as for contries in these articles you also show a map or for the earth you also have a picture. Why not having one for the world wide web? --Renepick (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You are free to write an article about such graphics, viz. this particular one, that provides the context needed for this graph to be useful. The fact that someone did the research to create it, by itself, doesn't make a good case to show it out of context, where its meaning is lost. The fact that many such factoids exist on WP, does not justify the case. Kbrose (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A world map is accurate, it displays actual, actionable information. This picture does not: if it displays any information at all, it isn't clear to the reader what that information is. Using the term "approximation" to describe it seems overly generous. Sure, we can aggregate the WWW into a graph of a few nodes and links, but the nodes don't appear to stand for anything specific, they may just as well be the arbitrary results of the clustering method chosen, which isn't clear either: the description says it's "the Louvain method" applied to "Web Data Commons - Hyperlink Graph 2012", so I'll need to study clustering methods and web data sets before I can understand the information content of this image. Note that the picture displaying part of the Wikipedia link graph doesn't have this problem - it is immediately clear what is being visualized there, at least to me. Rp (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Social Impact of the WWW

I think we need to start a new section covering the social impact of the web and the long-term implications of the technology.Twobellst@lk 10:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Deep Web"

The usage and primary topic of Deep Web is under discussion, see talk:Dark Web -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Wide Web. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Internet and cats

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Web And What Tim Berners-Lee And CERN Say About It...

I have been rather concerned at some of the changes to this page. Firstly, Tim Berners-Lee states that he invented the World Wide Web in 1989 - http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ - and this information surely belongs in the opening paragraph of the page? We should then move on to details of how the invention became a reality in the early 1990s. Here's a 2014 article from CERN celebrating the 1989 "Birth of the Web" -

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/03/world-wide-web-born-cern-25-years-ago

I have linked to both on the article page.

Whilst I admire and respect other Wikipedia editors, I think that some of the recently supplied information may be straying a little far from the point. And at least one of the illustrations (mosaic section) contains the information that the web was invented by Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau - which it was not. Although an enthusiastic supporter of Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau did not invent the Web. Lastly, the information that Berners-Lee states in his book "Weaving The Web" that he visualised creating a web-like system whilst at school is incorrect. Berners-Lee makes no such statement. I have made a few alterations here, but I do not want to upset other editors and ask that reference is made to Mr Berner Lee's own pages, and CERN, etc, and that thought is given to keep the page to the point and readable to people seeking relevant information.

(Etheldavis (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC))

According to this : http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/robert-cailliau

We can say without a doubt that Robert Cailliau was not a enthusiast supporter but a co-inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongo76 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Cailliau did not co-invent the World Wide Web - What Tim Berners-Lee Says...

After all the conversation on here, I have found this from Tim Berners-Lee himself:

"Some commentators suggest that Robert co-invented the WWW. To set this straight, he did not invent it. It wasn't his idea. He did not write the specifications for UDIs (later to be URLs, then URIs), or for HTML, the hypertext language, nor HTTP, the protocol, or the code of the original implementation. More than a year after my original proposal (March 1989), while I was working on the code, he wrote a proposal to CERN proposing some staff be allocated to the project. This was a brave thing to do, as CERN was always chronically short of manpower for the huge challenges it had taken on. So Robert put himself out there to claim that effort on WWW was worth it."

https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html (scroll down to section "Robert Cailliau's Role")

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

If the version of Tim Berners-lee is true, why the formal proposal is signed by both of them? This his strange that version is different, and make sense with the proposal provided up by Bongo76

84.78.78.160 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no contradiction:

So Robert wandered up the hill to see what his old colleague from the PS days was up to. There he found Tim with a prototype that was close to completion. 'So I immediately dropped my proposal,' Robert explains, 'because Tim's was a lot more detailed and further ahead than mine, and he already had some code running.' (...) As the project evolved, Robert became its evangelist. He fought hard to get resources, he set up the first ever welcome page for CERN, and he made sure that when the Web was offered as a service for physicists, it was reliable and well run. Tim, on the other hand, was content to bury his head in the bits and develop his software. 'I remember a day when I tried to sit down with Tim and make a project plan,' recalls Robert. 'He just did not understand the concept!' [1]

Basically, What is said here is that the Web as we know it; is the result of the work of two ... not one alone ... I don't know who just gave the reason why Robert Cailliau should be considered qs co-inventor of the WEB.141.143.212.231 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ James Gillies & Robert Cailliau (2000). How the web was born. Oxford University Press. p. 198. ISBN 0-19-286207-3.
I think this whole discussion is pointless. Our minds like to think about the world in terms of linear storylines and series of yes/no questions. Reality has more nuance. 12:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole discussion came from people wanted to deny the fact that Tim Berners-Lee did not invent the Web Alone.

They are plenty of source even from CERN pointing our Robert Cailliau as Co-Inventor, but English speacking people deny it, not french or spanish for example. 141.143.212.229 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The 'web as we know it' is the result of dozens of people doing the 'donkey-work'. Only one of those people is generally described as 'inventor' by RS. Adding properly sourced info about the role of others is informative, trying to pretend that sources (including the subject himself), give him the same role as TB-L is pure synth and is trying to right-great-wrongs. We are not here to privately assess what we think each's role was, or to reward them for it, even less to conjecture what it MUST have been, because of joint names on a document. This has nothing to do with English/non-English, it has to do with what RS say explicitly. Pincrete (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Web as he his today is the result of the proposal done at CERN by 2 people : TBL and RS, telling the opposite is negating the facts. Separate earlier works from both of them did not result in the creation of the web. In the discussion here above, you find plenty of source referencing RC as the co-inventor of the web, he was even labeled that way by CERN for conventions. Wikipedia should try to represent the facts not what is "Generaly Described as". 141.143.212.230 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Update

Much as possible god 07:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

World Wide Web raised at WP:ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inventor(s) of the World Wide Web?. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why administrator intervention is needed. However it may be good to archive the present discussion here to a separate page. Rp (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

- There are 2 conflicting opinion on one Themes, nobody want to step of ... I think it is more pride from English speacking people than really the search for truth and fairness. 141.143.212.227 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Update god 07:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eestrella198 (talk • contribs)

Robert Cailliau ?

Consensus is against listing Robert Cailliau in the lead as equal co-inventor of the web, alongside Tim Berners-Lee. It is hard to disagree with User:Pincrete who observes: "To assert in the lead 'co-inventor' would require that the majority of sources explicitly say this. They do not." Sources mentioned in this discussion show that Cailliau helped out in finding support for the original web proposal. It takes an unwarranted leap of WP:Synthesis to go from him being a supporter, and a co-author on certain papers, to being a co-inventor. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2016 (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.

Should Robert Cailliau be listed in the lead as equal co-inventor of the web, alongside Tim Berners-Lee? There is edit-warring going on at present to push this into the article. [1] [2] (and others). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


!votes, no discussion here please

  • OfCourse If you read the article, it is wrote that the proposal of Tim Benners-lee did not go through, but the one he wrote with Cailliau lead to the creation of the World Wild Web. So he is clearly co-inventor, reason why I will revert your change.--Bongo76 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Before you do that, I would suggest reading WP:EDITWAR. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't know about it, and goes to quick to revert.--Bongo76 (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
'Writing a proposal' is an admin task. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I missed the source (that wasn't TB-L at a much later date) that reduced Cailliau's involvement to that of "proposal writer" in the discussion area on this page. Pincrete, can you show me where he was described that way? It would obviously change my position a bit. Lizzius (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
No one specifically refers to his role as 'admin'. I was pointing out that concluding anything from there being joint names on the funding proposal, (which is referred to several times on this page), apart from being WP:OR, proves nothing anyhow. It is not uncommon for a more 'admin-experienced' person to construct a proposal, and add their name to give it authority. It does not in itself prove anything. If we jointly apply for a loan, does that mean we equally actually build the house? He was obviously involved, but co-inventor seems a mix of synth and dubious sources. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Lizzius, In fact he himself claims 'management'. Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support it is clear from many sources that Cailliau had critical involvement from the earliest stages. Things like this aren't "invented" in an afternoon. Giving some credit to Cailliau in no way diminishes the impact, importance, and prestige of TB-L. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence is offered below that doesn't require a lot of WP:SYNTH to conclude 'inventor'. There is no reason to not credit him as involved in the manner that TB-L or other sources may do, but co-inventor does not seem to be supported by ANY RS, let alone the majority, which would be the threshold of proof to justify insertion. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Pincrete. I looked at the article's sources in the lead and did not find any "coinventor". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support CERN's own documentation of the "WorldWideWeb" project lists Cailliau and Berners-Lee as co-authors of the project, as do many sources documenting the history of the internet. Lizzius (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Citation? And what did they "author"? Neither of them "authored the web". We know that Cailliau authored some of the early proposals, but (the whole point here) is that proposals are not invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per Lizzius. Unless is a very reliable source that specifically explains that project documentation at CERN was wrong and in fact Cailliau was not involved (or his contribution was minor), we have to accept his co-authorship as an undeniable fact. “WarKosign” 07:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should be wary of presenting them as of equal weight. Muffled Pocketed 07:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose To suggest that Robert Cailliau's contribution was sufficiently as substantial as that of Tim Berners-Lee to warrant the term "co-inventor", we'd need a reliable source asserting that, and I haven't seen one presented. Various arguments that sources which don't actually explicitly say (such as by using the term "inventor" or "co-inventor") none the less imply it seem to be too much WP:SYNTH for me. SJK (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though I am not much into the field, everything I have read in this melee suggests that R.C. played a significant role and possibly even that the WWW wouldn't have got off the ground without his intervention. He accordingly deserves mention and the readers deserve to be able to read about his role. It does NOT suggest that he was co-inventor. Every major invention/development needs an inventor. Sometimes it needs several inventors, whether rivals or team-mates, but that does not mean that everyone in the team necessarily is a co-inventor. I was not there, but it seems to me that in the genesis of the WWW there was one primary inventor and a team of associates, any of which might deserve recognition, possibly FAIK exceeding what the inventor deserves, but then they deserve recognition for moving mountains or whatever their roles were, not as inventors; misdiagnosis is no honour, no matter how splendid it sounds in the announcement. JonRichfield (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Being heavily involved does not necessarily indicate someone is a co-inventor. From what I've read so far, it looks like Cailliau had a decent hand in things, so appropriate weight would be to list what he actually did as the body currently does. I don't have a strong opinion on whether content from the body on Cailliau belongs in the lede though. The other option is to say Cailliau is sometimes listed as a co-inventor or that there is a dispute over this, but good sourcing would be needed describing this dispute. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion and comments

I agree with Bongo76. Cailliau appears as co-inventor in many articles and he's clearly awarded with that in plenty of article available in the web. 141.143.212.233 (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Lionel Tesolin

From when would you date the innovation of the WWW? From when would you date Cailliau's involvement? How many years apart are these?
Why was Cailliau not part of the Queen Elizabeth prize, shared between five? http://home.cern/about/updates/2013/03/ps1-million-engineering-prize-honours-web-pioneers
Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
   Andy let's go to the proposal of the WorldWideWeb on "https://www.w3.org/Proposal.html" Is it firmed by Tim Berners-lee alone or Tim Berners-lee and Robert Cailliau ?--Bongo76 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
See the time gap between the first paper and the first Cailliau paper?
IMHE, "the web" begins with the invention of URIs, not HTML or HTTP (Hypertext had got that far already with other pre-web systems). See my comments at Archive2 on "The WWW". However that's still in the 1990 single-developer era. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Tim Berners Lee alone invented the World Wide Web and wrote the first web browser. We must be careful when browsing the Web as not all information is accurate and I have come across the Calliau assertion myself, but reliable sources, including CERN - http://home.cern/topics/birth-web , state that the work was Berners Lee's alone. He re-submitted the same proposal in 1990. Robert Cailliau was a great support to Berners Lee, but he has never stated he invented the Web. We must remember that it is not just a case of what we can find written on the Web to support our viewpoints, Wiki policy states that the sources must be reliable. Do read all the available information on the Web at CERN. It's fascinating. (Etheldavis (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

W3org and CERN are Reliable, in both of them you find document accrediting that Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau are co-inventor of the web. You decide to ignore those document because you prefer to think that Tim Berners-Lee is the only inventor of the world wide web. Your sources : an article of opinion and the web site of a foundation created by Tim Berners-Lee ... Perhaps you should first apply your advice to yourself, and be cautious when you publish an opinion!--Bongo76 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also take a look at this from the World Wide Web foundation - http://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/

(Etheldavis (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)) 

     So what you are telling is that a foundation created by Tim Berners-Lee sais that Tim Berners-lee is the inventor and the only inventor of the Web? --Bongo76 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This CERN article states that Robert Cailliau was Berners Lee's first collaborator on the project - http://home.cern/images/2014/02/robert-cailliau-web-pioneer , but he was not co-inventor.

(Etheldavis (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)) 

  In one article from the CERN : "Berners-Lee wrote the first proposal for the World Wide Web (link is external) [PDF] at CERN in 1989, further refining the proposal with Belgian systems engineer Robert Cailliau the following year. On 12 November 1990 the pair published  a formal proposal outlining principal concepts and defining important terms behind the web. The document described a "hypertext project" called "WorldWideWeb" in which a "web" of "hypertext documents" could be viewed by “browsers”." [1]
   This show clearly that the pair(Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau) are co-inventor of the World Wide Web.Bongo76 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The first proposal is the initial invention - which sets out the vision from which the Web sprang. Inventions are always rtefined and honed as they are developed.

(Etheldavis (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)) 

  An intention(first draft, intial proposal) is not an invention, an invention is a finish product, and in this case "The Formal Proposal".Bongo76 (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Maria Dimou of CERN writes on the subject in a 2014 article on the Web to celebrate the anniversary of the Web's invention - http://home.cern/cern-people/opinion/2014/03/not-all-vague-and-much-more-exciting (Etheldavis (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)) 

  As you can read in the URL, it is an opinion,so not a source of truth, the fact that Maria Dimou do not name Robert Cailliau as co-inventor of the web, does not mean he isn't !Bongo76 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Surely the fact that CERN, the organisation that hosted the invention of the Web, doesn't, is rather more telling?

(Etheldavis (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

I agree and as shown before it is writing there that they are co-inventor, thanks for giving me reason !Bongo76 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't communicate with you further on this subject as I don't feel it would be constructive. With all due respect, I do not understand your logic on this occasion. My very best wishes to you. (Etheldavis (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

How do you want a conversation to be constructive when you start telling "The only truth is what I say" and then say "You do not know how to use internet" and "Only the sources confirming my vision are reliable"?Bongo76 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't put word into my mouth. I do admire your energy and fervour, but I don't appreciate having statements attributed to me that I haven't actually made. My source is the employer of both Berners-Lee and Cailliau at the time the Web was invented - CERN, a highly respected scientific organisation. I must close now, as I said before, I don't think this conversation is at all constructive. I hope you have a pleasant day.

(Etheldavis (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

CERN is also my source and the formal proposal for the World Wide Web. If it is not reliable what is reliable?Bongo76 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The first proposal is the invention, and it was submitted in March 1989 by Tim Berners-Lee. Here is CERN's information on Robert Cailliau as "first collaborator" on Tim Berners-Lee's web project - not as co-inventor - http://home.cern/images/2014/02/robert-cailliau-web-pioneer. I do hope this makes sense to anybody reading through it. I think it is as clear as can be.

(Etheldavis (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

Sorry but I disagree with you, The proposal wich lead to the creation of the world wide web was not the first proposal, as it is writing on the CERN article, the one which define and lead to the creation of the World Wide Web, is the Formal Proposal firmed by Tim Berners-lee and Robert Cailliau. The fact that both of them firm the proposal shows that Cailliau was more than a "Collaborator", he was the co-inventor!

On the other hand I do not understand why is it so important for you to believe that Tim Berners-Lee was the unique inventor of the World Wide Web, ignoring and trying to give other interpretation to clear proof that they were a pair of co-inventor? Bongo76 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry - wsithout Berners-Lee's original proposal, there would have been no Web. and Berners-Lee based it partly on work he had done in the second half of 1980 with ENQUIRE. I have flagged up Robert Cailliau's importance to the resulting project in the article.

(Etheldavis (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

You minimise the importance of Cailliau, without the Formal Proposal, there was no Web neither... it is why they are co-inventor Bongo76 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A MORE formal proposal. Berners-Lee had already submitted his original proposal a year earlier. Anyway, perhaps you'd like to take it all up with CERN, Robert Cailliau, Tim Berners-Lee, etc? None of them back your statement.

(Etheldavis (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)) On the CERN it is writing "A formal proposal", no more formal. None of them back my statement according to you ! Ask Cailliau about that you will be surprised! Look at the wiki in other languages ... and you will realise your error !Bongo76 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you that Mr Cailliau be seen as a "co-inventor"? I find your attitude puzzling in the extreme. I have flagged up the importance of Robert Cailliau's contribution as first collaborator, I have no interest in going on to Wiki sites seeking "evidence" - Wiki's are not submittable sources for statements anyway. This really is the end of my communications with you. All good wishes,

(Etheldavis (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

The accuracy of the information is important for me, thanks to you the page is not accurate, a co-inventor is not a first collaborator. The truth is important. my attitude is puzzling because I do not tell what you want. No sources contradicting your theories are reliable! Why does it cost you so much to admit that Tim Berners-Lee don't invent the WEB alone, as demonstrated with the Formal Proposal? Bongo76 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The ideas in the "more formal proposal" were still Berners-Lee's. I have tried to resolve this here, including flagging up Robert's "first collaborator role" and the link to the CERN page stating that. I have referred this to admin as I see no way to resolve the issue, as I think you are being rather unkind and personal and I find your attitude rather intimidating.

(Etheldavis (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

After all the conversation on here, I have found this from Tim Berners-Lee himself:

"Some commentators suggest that Robert co-invented the WWW. To set this straight, he did not invent it. It wasn't his idea. He did not write the specifications for UDIs (later to be URLs, then URIs), or for HTML, the hypertext language, nor HTTP, the protocol, or the code of the original implementation. More than a year after my original proposal (March 1989), while I was working on the code, he wrote a proposal to CERN proposing some staff be allocated to the project. This was a brave thing to do, as CERN was always chronically short of manpower for the huge challenges it had taken on. So Robert put himself out there to claim that effort on WWW was worth it."

https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html (scroll down to section "Robert Cailliau's Role") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etheldavis (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Etheldavis (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

  • Comment: much of the above discussion above is "original research", or "synthesis". This is not how Wikipedia should work. The question should not be "what credit does Cailliau deserve?". We should instead be asking "Do reliable published secondary sources call him 'the inventor of the www'? or 'an inventor'? or 'a co-inventor'?". Yes, this may seem wrong, or even crazy. Yesterday BBC radio presented an interview with Paul McCartney. He stated that that some published works on the origins of The Beatles are mistaken. But, by WP's rules, those works trump McCartney's interview. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You can find this interesting : Coursera : https://www.coursera.org/learn/internet-history/lecture/wtp9L/robert-cailliau-co-inventor-of-the-web

Or Wiki news :

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_World_Wide_Web_co-inventor_Robert_Cailliau

BBC mention also Cailliau as Co-inventor of the world wide web : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24759239

CERN : http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/OpenDaysE/main.html

or Interent Hall Of Fame : Robert Cailliau: "Robert Cailliau is most well known for the proposal, developed with Tim Berners-Lee, of a hypertext system for accessing documentation, which eventually led to the creation of the World Wide Web. - See more at: http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/robert-cailliau#sthash.ePkYpfAi.dpuf"

And there are more reliable Sources out there telling that Cailliau is co-inventor, evenif Sir Tim Berners-Lee claim the oposite. 141.143.212.229 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

From Wiki news cited above Robert Cailliau: In 1990 I had already left programming for ten years and was doing management. I'm also 8 years older than Tim, who himself was no longer a young programmer. It was evident that I could not compete with twenty year old Unix hackers and soon I stopped meddling with the writing of C code. Anyway I know only one programming language worse than C and that is Javascript. … I did influence the shapes of the web and the directions of development, but I mainly occupied myself with obtaining the resources necessary to keep the project going. I had a (meager) budget and so I got computers, offices, and above all people: young programmers who can spend a year working at CERN in the framework of its Technical Student Programme. To get all that done I had to plead often with the management. Pincrete (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You do a selective read of the article that start with : "The name Robert Cailliau may not ring a bell to the general public, but his invention is the reason why you are reading this: Dr. Cailliau together with his colleague Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, making the internet accessible so it could grow from an academic tool to a mass communication medium. Last January Dr. Cailliau retired from CERN, the European particle physics lab where the WWW emerged" This wiki news tell he is co-inventor! 84.78.78.160 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

To assert in the lead 'co-inventor' would require that the majority of sources explicitly say this. They do not. That he had an important role is supported by everyone, including himself, why not record that role. We are not here handing out 'Gold Medals', simply recording what the majority of sources say, and fairly-or-not, they do not record him as co-inventor. Pincrete (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
What abstarct concept is "Majority of Sources"? The fact that the proposal that lead to the web is firmed by both of them is the proof that Robert Cailliau is co-inventor, it is not about "Gold Medal", it is the fact and if you stick to the fact, not to their interpretation, Robert Cailliau is the co-auteur of the project that leed to the creation of the Web, so the co-autor of the web!141.143.212.227 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
141.143.212.227, check out WP:V, WP:RS. "Majority of (reliable) sources" is the cornerstone of WP. You are simply wasting your (and our) time endlessly repeating the same WP:OR and WP:SYNTH arguments based on your analysis of primary documents, and without a cat-in-hell's chance of this RfC concluding what you think it ought to conclude. Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Simple question what is a more WP:RS that the document that led to the creation of internet, there are no WP:SYNTH here, the document is firm by two person, they are co-inventor. You make WP:SYNTH, use vague argument as "majority of source", people told that, etc ... To resume : There is a formal proposal which is WP:RS and WP:V, and RC is co-autor, so co-inventor, the rest are opinion, you repeat it endless for forcing your way of thinking. Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be based on fact ... not majority of opinions!141.143.212.230 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

In the introduction 'computer programme' should be written as 'computer program'. That is the correct usage when referring to a program of a computer. Programme would be used in British English for other types of programme. Konflicttheory (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This article is written in British English - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The terms Internet and World Wide Web

The definition of Internet and of World Wide Web are not precise. If the intent is to get people to use the proper term then they must be defined more clearly. For example, are all the protocols such as HTTP, FTP and TCP/IP part of the internet only? Are the servers, browsers, HTML and DNS all the WWW but not the internet?

For example, the Internet article (in History) says that "a working Web" is HTTP, HTML, browsers, HTTP server software, web servers and web pages. (I don't understand the difference between HTTP server software and web servers but that is not relevant here.) Doesn't that really blur the distinction between the Internet and the World Wide Web? Probably that other article needs to be improved but I think that since this article attempts to differentiate the definition of the Internet and of the World Wide Web, this article should be improved. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article says that the web "is implemented as both client and server software using Internet protocols such as TCP/IP and HTTP". Sam Tomato (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The web is a subset of the internet, but they're not exclusive sets. HTTP is still part of the internet. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Possibly the web can be considered an additional layer above the Internet protocol suite. The internet protocol suite is already layered. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To me the fundamental difference is that the Internet is a load of computers linked by cables, whereas the web is a web of documents linked by hyperlinks. Huge difference. --Nigelj (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's another way to look at it. Although I'd see the internet as processes linked by protocols, rather than specific statements about hardware. It has never needed to be cables: wireless links have long been usable and are now common, avian carriers less so. Computers could be replaced by sentient trees or Reading of Warwick. It's the shared protocols that are canonically defining. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is a bunch of malarkey

Where is there a reference for definition of world wide web? It is so much more than hyper text linked documents. To say that Tim is the inventor is nonsense. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you be any more specific? What's wrong with it? What's missing? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you know the rules - show us the refs that tell us what else it is, and who else invented it, and we'll discuss the proposed text changes. --Nigelj (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Without a ref to a definition of the world wide web, this article is total garbage. The world wide web is not what this article implies it is. I suggest this article get deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever actually read Berners-Lee's writings? As in his essays, books, etc. If you haven't read them, you have no idea what you're talking about. The definition at the top of the article is fully consistent with that of Berners-Lee and Cailliau, both at the beginning and as developed throughout the 1990s. And have you actually visited CERN? --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it should be easy for you to come up with a reference then. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The references are right in there. Please be specific on what you think is wrong or incomplete, we can't read your mind. But let me try:
  • If your objection is that Berners-Lee wasn't the first to use hyperlinked documents nor the first to marry them with the internet, I agree that some rewording and some more references to prior technology such as Gopher and MIT Athena may be in order.
  • If your objection is that the web is much more than hyperlinked documents, and quickly took the role of a universal application interface platform, starting with the addition of forms, I agree that the article should probably be extended to cover that better. Rp (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
TBL invented the World Wide Web which runs on the Internet backbone, so without him you likely as not wouldn't be writing on here now to complain.
Just because some people don't understand the difference between the Internet and the WWW is no reason for trying to claim TBL didn't invent the WWW, it is plainly obvious to anyone that that's just what he did. And being a network standard the WWW is in no way dependant on the Internet for its use, it just happened that way, indeed the WWW could just as easily be re-written to use any other network protocol, and thus an alternative network. Thus the WWW is not dependant on the existence of the Internet.
The fact is that before TBL devised the WWW the usage of the Internet was restricted to a few institutions around the world, and without him and the WWW it likely as not still would be.
... and it is noticeable that here on Wikipedia whenever a British-related subject is involved there is always someone trying to dispute or negate any article, a factor that is absent from talk pages on articles about just about every other country or nationality here on Wiikpedia. If one were being unkind one could be forgiven for thinking that some people from other nations have inferiority complexes about such things.
...and in addition, if some of the readers on here are under the misapprehension that the development of the computer was confined to their own particular country then I suggest they try reading some of the articles below:
... plus a load more I cannot be bothered linking.
... and I nearly forgot about Colossus.
... "Those who need to know, DO know."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The latter is a quote from Tom Kilburn: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

relation of WWW and DNS

A recent change to longstanding wording, "partially built on the Domain Name System", to "built on top of the Domain Name System" is confusing. I can operate without the DNS so it's not built on top of it, but only partially. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The WWW is built atop DNS like the Empire State Building is built atop the Earth's core. There is no relation worth mentioning.
To say "partially built on" is to give an excessive implication that use of DNS is optional. It is (names can be resolved locally by hostfiles, or by using explicit IPs) but this would be peculiar and not deserving of specific mention. You might as well state, "The Web uses port 80, or sometimes port 8080". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the opening sentence as it now stands, apparently starting with this edit. Thevideodrome (talk · contribs) said, "added a bit about the Domain Name System." We have stuff about DNS in the Function section, as well as under WWW prefix. Sure we summarise the main points of the article in the lede section, but I don't think that DNS is so central to the web that it needs to appear in sucha summary, much less as the whole second half of the all-important opening sentence.
Per wp:lede, we don't need citations in the lede section for well-cited and non-controversial material that already appears in the body of the article, so why do we have a citation for this opening sentence? Worse still, we cite it to the whole http://www.w3.org website! The front page of this website (where that link lands) is a regularly updated news page that has different content on it day by day, so this citation is worse than useless. I have put a new subsection heading below, because I'd like to discuss improving the opening sentence in more general terms. --Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the reference to DNS is described as 'longstanding wording' at the top of this section. I don't think that's quite true, unless you count 'since yesterday' as longstanding. I've traced the opening sentence back as far as June 2012 (1,000 edits back) and I'm still seeing 'a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet.' with no mention of DNS. --Nigelj (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence improvement

Looking around the w3.org site, we find here that the W3C themselves use our own definition of internet (from the opening sentence of that article), but they don't use our definition for the WWW from this article. They say it "is an information space in which the items of interest, referred to as resources, are identified by global identifiers called Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)." That is in three parts: (1) 'information space', which we mimic with 'information system', (2) 'resources', which we call 'hypertext documents', and (3) 'URIs', which is where we take a different tack, talking about 'interlinked hypertext'. I'm happy with our difference at (3), as from the W3C definition there would be no reason why it is called a 'web', rather than being a simple list of documents each with a unique URI. Looking at their own cited longer document,[4] I think it's clear that they want to get on and introduce the three main technical pillars - URIs, HTTP, and HTML - and so introducing one of them right up front works well.

For my part, I'd like to agree with them in item (1) and use the phrase 'information space', because 'information system' sounds to me like a piece of software that would run on one machine, or maybe a cluster, or even a whole datacentre, but the web is much much bigger and more diverse than this. I think 'space' is more appropriate than 'system'. Regarding (2), I'm not so sure. Web resource is the correct term, but it is a technical term, that is a slightly unusual usage of a more common word. To most people, a resource is raw material or a source of raw materials. If they work in HR, they may think of a resource as a person, or if they think like a senior manager they may think of a department or a building or a piece of equipment or plant. For it to refer to a document or image takes another leap of knowledge. We cover the term well in the body of the article (23 mentions), but I don't think we need to have it dominate the opening sentence, per the principle of least astonishment. For (3) I prefer our approach, as I described above.

I propose the following for the opening sentence:

The World Wide Web (www, W3) is an information space where documents and other web resources are identified by URIs, interlinked by hypertext links, and can be accessed via the Internet.

--Nigelj (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Web resources only has to have a URI it doesn't need to be interlinked example ftp://localhost/afd.html is a webresource (as it has an URI) but it is not hyperlinked it is only used to transfer the file afd.html back and forth. So the sentence needs to be changed to (generally interlinked) Uni3993 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The term information space is a rather nebulous term that doesn't mean anything specific. The WP article for the term is equally nebulous. There is no implication in the term information system that limits it in scope. Kbrose (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Do you have a citation, better than the W3C, that the web is an 'information system'? I think the W3C's use of the more nebulous term is exactly correct in that the web as a whole is a rather nebulous thing. As I said above, "'information system' sounds to me like a piece of software that would run on one machine, or maybe a cluster, or even a whole datacentre". But ultimately it doesn't matter what you and I think, it's what the preponderance of reliable sources say that matters, and nothing else. Please provide a source. --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of any citation supporting information system in the opening definition, I'm going to go with information space per W3C. --Nigelj (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

New opening sentence

WWW is an information space where hyperlinked documents and other web resources are identified by Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and can be accessed via the Internet 184.151.190.75 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No. It's better as it is, as discussed above. --Nigelj (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A web without hypertext links?

Two identical edits recently have added the word generally and placed the phrase about hypertext links into parentheses in the opening sentence. First, the word is vague and it's meaning in this context is never addressed in the body of the article. Second, if it means anything, it implies that the World Wide Web may exist in some alternate reality without hyperlinks. What kind of 'web' would it be if the resources were not linked? --Nigelj (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

WP has a weird and dysfunctional relationship with adjectives. Those that are descriptive, justified and sourceable get removed as "OR" or "subjective". Yet obvious statements of absolute fact (a web defined as a web of hypertext documents will indeed include hyperlinks) get qualifications of "generally" or "[citation needed]" slapped on them.
But then anyone with a class project to edit a long-established and broadly complete article can still find a space to squeeze in such a qualification. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

After a note on my talk page and a search, I found the following buried in a two year old discussion above. I've copied it here to keep the discussion in one place. --Nigelj (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Web resources only has to have a URI it doesn't need to be interlinked example ftp://localhost/afd.html is a webresource (as it has an URI) but it is not hyperlinked it is only used to transfer the file afd.html back and forth. So the sentence needs to be changed to (generally interlinked) Uni3993 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
But that's no longer a 'web', if it's a single URL to a single document. And where was that URL published? Unless that Sacred Monodocumentary URL is passed down through some sort of oral tradition (or at minimum, a printed document that's not online and retrievable by HTTP) this isn't a web at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Uni3993, the example you give is a valid URI, but it is not strictly speaking a "web" link, if the WWW is defined as relying on HTTP rather than FTP. More importantly than this though is the context. This article is about the WWW. It is not the article on web resources. The file at your FTP URI may well be a web resource, but until it is accessible via http and linked from elsewhere on three web it is not part of the WWW. It is not reasonable the alter the single sentence that Wikipedia uses to define succinctly the World Wide Web to emphasise the existence of such files and such URIs. They are strictly not necessarily part of the web, and this article is about the web.
Also, please always add new comments at the bottom of a discussion, and add new talk page topics only at the bottom of talk pages.
Finally please read WP:BRD as I suggested after your first revert. You only get to be bold once on each idea. If you are reverted, you must discuss. To continue to re-revert your original change is called edit warring. It is severely frowned up on Wikipedia and can lead to administrative action against you. --Nigelj (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok show me the w3.org page where it says web resources NEEDS to be hyperlinked and use HTTP?69.158.148.87 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Show me the dictionary that calls one item "a web of items". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because you can access one item with an URI doesn't mean it is not a "web" or "something resembling woven material". These entities you can access with URI are still connected and linked to each other by the underlying TCP/IP network (Internet). Web resources don't have to be linked to one another think about a webpage test.html on a website, this is part of the world wide web right? even though no page links to it. But its not part of the surface web, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_web#Content_types (unlinked content). 69.158.148.87 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it's about context. You tried to alter the first sentence by muddying it with one extra word, no explanation and no citations. If you can find an academic discussion of this point in reliable sources, try adding a sentence or two to the main body of the article, like "Author X has argued that anything that can be sent over the Internet, including emails, are part of the World Wide Web.[ref1] Academic Y disagreed saying that only linked HTTP content counts.[ref2]" If this debate was really raging somewhere, and we covered it in the article in that way, it might warrant a short summary deep in the wp:lead section. But it would never get into the opening sentence, which is where you tried to put it using just one word. --Nigelj (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Then the best resolution would simply removing interlinked by hyperlinks, the definition in that case would be the same as the people who invented the term, see: https://www.w3.org/Help/#webinternet 69.158.148.87. Also I never said there is discussion related to the definition of WWW. The definition is already clear in w3.org. The Web is an information space containing hyperlinked documents and other resources, identified by their URIs. (not necessarily hyperlinked) (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've actually had exactly that conversation, with the two Dans (Brickley & Connolly), about 2000, in reference to SemWeb, the Internet of Things and spime. Although we agreed that "the web" was "anything you could either reach or identify with a URI [sic]" (and importantly, it need not be reachable - URIs can refer to nodes within a private document on a single machine, but they still have "their place in the web" definable), that's still not the best wording for the lead of this article. It should say "linked by hyperlinks", with "linked by" and without qualifiers - because that is the basic use case for the web, acting in the manner for which it was intended, and it retains the vast benefit of clarity for the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"World-Wide" is a compound adjective.

Wen should hyphenate "world-wide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.143.94 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the correct spelling of the English adjective is worldwide. At the same time, the correct spelling of the name of the information space is World Wide Web. "1990... [Tim Berners-Lee] makes up "WorldWideWeb" as a name for the program. (See the first browser screenshot) [and] "World Wide Web" as a name for the project (over Information Mesh, Mine of Information, and Information Mine).[5][6] --Nigelj (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World Wide Web. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Article on topology

What should it be Sufyanwajid (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Technical flaw in "Web Caching"

This sentence seems incorrect to me: "Most web browsers also implement a browser cache for recently obtained data, usually on the local disk drive." Can we agree to modify that to: "Most web browsers also implement a browser cache by writing recently obtained data to a local data storage device." or similar.

Disk drives are just one of several types of data storage devices, are in general decline, and are almost never implemented in portable cyber devices other than laptops. And my guess is that distant storage of cache data is so rare that the word 'usually' isn't justified. However if anyone believes otherwise perhaps 'local' could be replaced by 'more local' or similar.

If there are no objections I'd like to implement the change in a few days, or if I fail someone else is welcome to do so. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No objections appeared so I implemented this change. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

misleading web index map

the web index map included in header is misleading.

due to these and other reasons, it does not represent "world wide web" in any meaningful way. and as such does not belong in the header(or even body) of this article. --123.231.111.33 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the logic of the image [7]File:Internet_Key_Layers.png? Some original research?

I cannot see the logic of this layer illustration. It is not a variation of the OSI model at all. Both the search engine and the web content lie in the application layer. Browsers should not be a layer below the search engine, and a browser, in its essence, is an application layer implementation to transmit, parse and present HTTP/SSH/FTP protocol contents via TCP/IP transport/network layer protocols.

But the description below the figure is saying something correct. World Wide Web is an application-layer structure interconnected by hyperlinks.

This image has been widely used across Wikipedias in various languages, however, I don't think it is correct from a computer science perspective. --Celestial Phineas (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is very approximate and some of the milestones it lists are very arbitrary. To fix the diagram as a layer model, there should be an application protocols layer, with email and web side by side inside it, and an 'applications and content' layer can go on top of that, with web search inside web applications. Some of the milestones are precursors in the hypertext area, but hypertext as such is not a layer, it's a principle. Rp (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statistics

Can someone update statistics? It is outdated. We may have new figures as www turned 30 today.-Nizil (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

There is an error in the plural possessive of the word "users" in this sentence, a fragment of which is presented below:

Change

which responds to requests made over the Internet from web browsers running on user's computers.

To

which responds to requests made over the Internet from web browsers running on users' computers. 69.17.142.246 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. Thanks. GMGtalk 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Most people call it the internet not the web 204.185.167.1 (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The internet and the world wide web are two different things. See also Internet. GMGtalk 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WWW proposal turns 30

No idea why everyone is saying "the web is 30." The proposal is 30. I couldn't even figure out what 1989 was in reference to, because nothing was completed that year. There were 0 web pages until December 1990. So I have no idea why the birthdate isn't December 2020. Since it is.

Of course the cat is out of the bag, everyone is saying the birthdate is the proposal date, as if the idea was born that day, let alone the implementation, but it's BS.

63.155.43.230 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019

The history section claims first european direct internet access was in 1988, yet n fact it was 1982 (using tcp/ip) as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_Kingdom Crowcroft (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Influence section

I am surprised there is no subsection on the influence on human societies. The WWW fundamentally altered the way we live, work, think and play. It reshaped entire business sectors. And overall, for many people, it altered attention spans and sleep cycles. --Milan.j (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://home.cern/about/topics/birth-web/where-web-was-born
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Wide_Web/Archive_3&oldid=1079309464"