This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The webml.org site gives the impression this is an open web standard but a little investigation will show there's no such standard and the dot org site is just a front for the Italian company pushing software whose price they won't even put in plain view. For an example of real internet standards see the W3c or ISC or other <whatever>ML promulgating entities. Text appears to try to create the impression this is a standard attempting to gain ground which is used by the WebRatio software among others when in fact it's a closely held intellectual property component of said product line and used only in it or aftermarket extensions of it. Lycurgus ( talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is actually a standard that is used somewhere or not (I took the course mentioned in the external links, and I highly doubt it,) this article would be better off being deleted than just left as is. It's without structure, it's incomplete, it's badly organised, and it is full of grammatical and spelling errors. It is a total disaster. 84.227.142.60 ( talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The webml.org site gives the impression this is an open web standard but a little investigation will show there's no such standard and the dot org site is just a front for the Italian company pushing software whose price they won't even put in plain view. For an example of real internet standards see the W3c or ISC or other <whatever>ML promulgating entities. Text appears to try to create the impression this is a standard attempting to gain ground which is used by the WebRatio software among others when in fact it's a closely held intellectual property component of said product line and used only in it or aftermarket extensions of it. Lycurgus ( talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is actually a standard that is used somewhere or not (I took the course mentioned in the external links, and I highly doubt it,) this article would be better off being deleted than just left as is. It's without structure, it's incomplete, it's badly organised, and it is full of grammatical and spelling errors. It is a total disaster. 84.227.142.60 ( talk) 19:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)