No; it means that gopher is part of the Web. Remember, I'm equating
"Web" with URLs -- gopher is fully-URLable, and fully accessible from
all the main browsers; it's every bit as much part of the Web as
anything else is.
Yes, this is an extremely inclusive definition of the "Web". That's
simply going with the tide -- the Web is becoming highly inclusive.
All of these things talk to each other all over the place, and are
richly-crosslinked, and all are using the same browsers (mostly).
Drawing lines based on technologies just seems silly, since everything
is spilling over into each other so much...
You cited the hackers in the www newsgroups. I'll do you one better,
and propose an experiment: let's ask TimBL whether *he* thinks VRML
falls under the general header of the Web. He invented the thing; I
think he's likely to have a relatively informed opinion on what the
"Web" means these days. I'm willing to change my opinion if he differs,
but I suspect he won't.
>I think we have a basic philosophica difference here. Looking at VRML
>as some sort of extension of WWW is shortsighted at best.
You are *totally* missing the point. It's not a question of extension;
it's a question of definition. The Web is currently in the process of
being defined as the Great Morass of Stuff that you can easily access
through the Net -- it's the logical, conceptual counterpart to the
physical entity that is the Net. (Essentially the same thing as the
"Spew", but it's a much nicer term.)
Our main disagreement here is about the definition of the Web; I think
that your definition *was* accurate, but is passing rapidly as things
evolve...
-- Justin
Who honestly doesn't give a *damn* where
the newsgroup lands, but the pedant in
me has been roused...
Random Quote du Jour:
">Are [comics] effective stress relievers?
Yes. A large box of comics (20+ pounds) applied to the head with a swift
downward motion relieves stresses of all sorts for a period of time."
-- The Roach