zachary Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Is w3schools.com affilated with w3.org? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_illusions Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 at the bottom of each page - W3Schools provides material for training only. We do not warrant the correctness of its contentsso i'm guessing its not affilated with w3.org:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 no it is not affiliated in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 But it is still very nice to be able to say, like, "I am a respected member of the forum, that is part of the site that is related to the orrigin of all internet"Or something similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 But it is still very nice to be able to say, like, "I am a respected member of the forum, that is part of the site that is related to the orrigin of all internet"Or something similar <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? W3Schools.com is not related to the origins of the internet!The Internet began as a Network developed by the Department of Defense (DARPA) in the late 60's. It became public in the early 80's.W3schools.com provides tutorials on modern Internet technologies and is in no way responsible for creating and maintaining standards.W3schools.com is just a tutorial site, just like many other sites on the Interent that teach web technologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Wasn't W3C, World Wide Web Consortium the first website?I was taught so by my Xhtml book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 no it wasn't.nxoc01.cern.ch was the first website. http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/firstsite.htmlAnd the topic is about w3schools not w3c anyways. This forum and w3schools are NOT related to W3C in any way!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ok okay, don't worry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ok okay, don't worry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am not worried I was just pointing out what you were telling them wasn't correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott100 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Wasn't W3C, World Wide Web Consortium the first website?I was taught so by my Xhtml book <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Haha, Dan your funny sometimes, read a more reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Haha, Dan your funny sometimes, read a more reliable source.Says Scott, as he links to wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Says Scott, as he links to wikipedia.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are you saying about wikipedia? Is it not reliable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Not always. Wiki is user-edited, and has been subject of people having some fun before. For the most part it is though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Thanks Jonas...I didn't realise it was user-edited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott100 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Says Scott, as he links to wikipedia.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can only speak for myself but i've never had any problems with it :)EDIT is this better: http://www.w3.org/History.htmlhttp://www.w3.org/Consortium/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I consider wikipedia to be fairly reliable, I was just pointing out the irony. There has been some press lately questioning the reliability with some spotlights on people editing articles about themselves or about their competition, or about people commenting on things that they don't know anything about. But for the most part, especially with major subjects, it does a good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) Anyway, I mistook or halfly forgot and therefor assumed the wrong thing :blink:As I read the text at wikipedia, what the W3C organisation stand for, I do remember they were only about the WWW standards, so my mistake, I am sorry, I appologise, lets shake hands an pray, that I will never do it again :)And oh, Scott, yeah I am funny lol [*Sidenote:] I hope I will never post that 666th message *shiveres*[edit]I posted two messages simultaniously, smart [/edit] Edited May 31, 2006 by Dan The Prof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) I consider wikipedia to be fairly reliable, I was just pointing out the irony. There has been some press lately questioning the reliability with some spotlights on people editing articles about themselves or about their competition, or about people commenting on things that they don't know anything about. But for the most part, especially with major subjects, it does a good job.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> One example where Wiki has been very wrong.Torbjørn Jagland is a Norwegian politician. I do not support him, but he's never been convicted a terrorist, that's utter crap. It's an obvious example of someone having fun. How would he be convicted a terrorist in 1996 and then be allowed to be Prime Minister in 1996-97 (which he indeed has been). He has been a central character in the Norwegian Labour Party, which is a left wing, socialist party. The information about him being a terrorist has probably been put there by someone on the far right wing.The article stands corrected today.So you see how inaccurate it can be when anyone and everyone can edit it. Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problemsOn a side note, while I was searching this info, I stumbled over this:http://encyclopodia.sourceforge.net/en/index.html Edited May 31, 2006 by Jonas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott100 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 So you see how inaccurate it can be when anyone and everyone can edit it. Noted. In a general sense though, how much of what we read on the internet is to be taken seriously, there's nothing stopping someone writing a lot of garbage and posting it on their site, is there. Alot of what we read is taken on trust that it's author is telling the truth Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven't met a wiki-fiddler a wiki-fiddler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack McKalling Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 But the topic was about W3C, and not wikipedia I thought? *lets get back ontopic* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 In a general sense though, how much of what we read on the internet is to be taken seriously, there's nothing stopping someone writing a lot of garbage and posting it on their site, is there. Alot of what we read is taken on trust that it's author is telling the truthThat's true, it's especially true in journalism. Some people take the assumption that journalists don't lie or something like that. That's not true at all, journalists are bored people working a job too, and they don't always put the care or fact-checking in every article that they should. They also put there own spin on things. What to most rational people is a public humiliation shame site to get someone to do the right thing, to the BBC this site is a "hate site" (or at least the web editor who wrote the particular article I'm thinking of). This goes for people like CNN, BBC, NYTimes (obviously), etc. Read with an open mind, but make sure you have a filter, don't accept everything as truth unless you see it backed up by people you already respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott100 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 What to most rational people is a public humiliation shame site to get someone to do the right thing, to the BBC this site is a "hate site" (or at least the web editor who wrote the particular article I'm thinking of).<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's because of people like him i try not to spend over £30 max on ebay, they take your money and vanish But your right about jouralists, unless they back up their articles with facts then yes i keep an open mind about what they print.But the topic was about W3C, and not wikipedia I thought? *lets get back ontopic*<{POST_SNAPBACK}> As far as i'm concerned the topic starters question was answered by aspnetguy "it is not affiliated in any way", end of *maybe post requires a karate chop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspnetguy Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 But the topic was about W3C, and not wikipedia I thought? *lets get back ontopic*<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was not about W3C it was whether or not W3Schools.com was affiliated with W3C.And the question has been answered. I will close this thread now if nobody has objections. PM me if you feel there is value in leaving it open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts