> >> 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/
