But I would prefer as a name for the new group:
WWW is much shorter and easier to write, but only insiders know what
www is standing for. The name world-wide-web on the other side gives
instantly an idea of the intentions of such a system. So for
presentation and public relation purposes the term world-wide-web
is much better.
Another problem is the pronounciation of www. Has anyone a suggestion?
Finally I would like to suggest that we come to an agreement
on how to name the World Wide Web project in speech and writing.
In the past I have seen the following terms:
World Wide Web, World-Wide-Web, WorldWideWeb, world-wide-web,
www, WWW, W3, w3,
Compare this confusing collection of terms with the term "Gopher".
"Gopher" is a single, easy pronouncable and associative term.
And the terms for the different browsers and other software:
www, WWW, viola, violaWWW, WWWViola, tkwww, TkWWW, tkWWW, midaswww,
MidasWWW, Xmosaic, xmosaic, X Mosaic, WWWNextStep, WWWLibrary,
HTMLGate, WWWLineMode, www_and_frame, print-www, WWWMailRobot ...
When I first come to info.cern.ch last year with just a vague idea
of what World Wide Web could mean. I was very confused and it takes
some time and experimentation until I know what I need to get started.
The situation now is b even worse.
Dipl.-Ing. Arnold Bloemer Universitaet Hannover
Institut fuer Theoretische Nachrichtentechnik
email@example.com Appelstrasse 9A
fax: +49-511-762-5333 D-3000 Hannover 1
phone: +49-511-762-5320 Germany