RE: WWW vs. Internet

> >> 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/

Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 06:12:01 UTC