W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2003

Re: WWW vs. Internet

From: Dick Vile <rvile@fame.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 07:46:29 -0400
Message-ID: <07dd01c32e7c$c40d3c50$322fa8c0@vile>
To: "Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design" <nigel@miswebdesign.com>, "Etan Wexler" <ewexler@stickdog.com>, "www-talk" <www-talk@w3.org>

>
> > >> Are the terms "World Wide Web" and "Internet" now synonymous?
> > >
> > > No not at all. The web is only 1 (or 2) of the tens of
> > thousands of services
> > > being run on the Internet.
> >
> > I strongly disagree. The heart of the World Wide Web is URIs. Given
the
> > dozens of URI schemes in existence and the millions of URIs
> > coined, the Web
> > is far more than two services on the Internet.
>
> Personally I consider the Web to be only Web sites.
>
> > Consider the URI schemes "ftp", "news", "mailto", "pop", "imap", and
> > "telnet". These schemes depend on the Internet but have little to do
with
> > HTTP. Are the related resources and services part of the Web? I
would say
> > yes.
>
> I would say no.
>
> > Consider the URI schemes "tel", "fax", and "modem". These depend
> > on networks
> > other than the Internet. Are the related resources and services
> > part of the
> > Web? I would say yes.
>
> I would say no.
>
> > Consider the URI scheme "urn". Namespaces registered for it have
been used
> > to idenitfy such non-network resources as books ("ISBN") and
> > people ("PIN").
> > Are those resources part of the Web? I would say yes.
>
> Again I would say no.
>
> > > World Wide Web - The network of http (and https) servers running
on the
> > > "Internet".
> >
> > Even if the Web were just HTTP (and it isn't), this definition fails
to
> > account for HTTP clients. Those clients are part of the Web, yes?
>
> I would say they are the devices used to access the Web, not part of
the Web itself.
>
> > > Internet - The world wide TCP/IP based network and all the tens
> > of thousands
> > > of services being run across it.
> >
> > This definition fails to account for UDP. Surely UDP and the
services that
> > it supports (TFTP and NFS, among others) are part of the Internet.
>
> I was using TCP/IP as the name for the Protocol suite as a whole (as
most people/everyone except you does?).
>
> Would you have preferred me to say:
>
> The world wide ip, icmp, ggp, tcp, egp, pup, udp, hmp, xns-idp, rdp,
rvd based network and all the tens of thousands of services being run
across it?
>
> (no I'm not saying they're all listed there, I'm just making a point,
so please don't point out the ones I didn't mention)
>
> > > Many people think of them as being synonymous. But those people
> > will not be
> > > found on this list :)
> >
> > Well, I was hoping for the emergence of what I call useful lies, but
the
> > definitions so far are too misleading to qualify.
>
> Please explain.
>
> > I think that a rigorous
> > definition of the World Wide Web is too complex and exhausting to
use in
> > introductory material or in conversation. I would like a simple
definition
> > that omits the bulk of details, is almost correct about the parts
that it
> > does mention, and is comprehensible to people with light
> > experience in high
> > technology.
>
> And in answer to the question? Are the terms "World Wide Web" and
"Internet" now synonymous? Your answer?
>
> Cheers,
> Nigel
>
> MIS Web Design
> http://www.miswebdesign.com/
>




Humpty Dumpty said it best: "I can make a word mean whatever I want it
to mean"

-- Dick Vile in Ann Arbor, MI USA
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 07:56:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT