Talk:World Wide Web: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger |
imported>ZachPruckowski No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Technical details== | ==Technical details== | ||
I have re-written the "How the web works" section to be a more understandable high-level description. I will put the technical details about the DNS, TCP/IP, HTML, CSS, etc back into the article some time soon. Not quite sure where they should go, maybe a sub-category under "how the web works", but I just thought it was important to give a simple description first rather than throwing a whole lot of terminology at the reader.--[[User:Konstantin Tchernov|Konstantin Tchernov]] 07:36, 17 January 2007 (CST) | I have re-written the "How the web works" section to be a more understandable high-level description. I will put the technical details about the DNS, TCP/IP, HTML, CSS, etc back into the article some time soon. Not quite sure where they should go, maybe a sub-category under "how the web works", but I just thought it was important to give a simple description first rather than throwing a whole lot of terminology at the reader.--[[User:Konstantin Tchernov|Konstantin Tchernov]] 07:36, 17 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:I have to agree with you on that decision. Personally, I think a lot of the technical stuff can go into the separate articles, with only a brief discussion here about what they do. If this is to be targetted for a non-CS-majoring college freshman, they just need to know what CSS, HTML, DNS, and HTTP are. They don't need to know POST vs. GET or user agents. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 11:51, 17 January 2007 (CST) | |||
== Major problems == | == Major problems == | ||
Revision as of 11:51, 17 January 2007
Technical details
I have re-written the "How the web works" section to be a more understandable high-level description. I will put the technical details about the DNS, TCP/IP, HTML, CSS, etc back into the article some time soon. Not quite sure where they should go, maybe a sub-category under "how the web works", but I just thought it was important to give a simple description first rather than throwing a whole lot of terminology at the reader.--Konstantin Tchernov 07:36, 17 January 2007 (CST)
- I have to agree with you on that decision. Personally, I think a lot of the technical stuff can go into the separate articles, with only a brief discussion here about what they do. If this is to be targetted for a non-CS-majoring college freshman, they just need to know what CSS, HTML, DNS, and HTTP are. They don't need to know POST vs. GET or user agents. --ZachPruckowski 11:51, 17 January 2007 (CST)
Major problems
What I see that is majorly wrong here (just a very brief quick list):
- Dreadful structure - order of sections is ridiculous
- No in-line citations and hardly any references
- Poor prose, does not flow. Some inconsistent writing style. Sometimes boring and technical sometimes full of unnecessary flowery words like "dispersed around the planet in time and space"
- The "basic terms" section is rather strange, I think if needed these terms should be defined in other places as they are mentioned.--Konstantin Tchernov 08:21, 17 January 2007 (CST)
Question: would a better article result more quickly if you were to (1) blank the article, and then (2) write a new one that lacks the above enumerated problems, while using the WP article (linked handily from our own article) as a rough guide? I ask out of curiosity. I know that's how I feel about the Philosophy article... --Larry Sanger 08:51, 17 January 2007 (CST)