Over the holiday weekend, one of my favorite topics was highlighted on TechCrunch's email of the week article relating to the "proper" written form of what I, like TechCrunch, like to call a "website". This was approprately responded to by Michael Arrington and I want to give a big kudos to his response.

There has always been a great debate over the "correct" way technology items should be written and in this case, the use of "website" by TechCrunch in a recent article. Having been brought up as an advertising student in a Journalism program, my first hand experience mirrors what Arrington highlights in his article, specifically his position that the AP is "woefully behind the times." This was the case when I was in school in the early 90s, and it looks like nothing has changed. Arrington hits the nail on the head related to the "self importance" that the AP styleguide has put on itself. The fact is, AP loved the influence it "had" on the written form. Emphasis on the word: had.

As added commentary, the use of "Web" does not always relate to the proper noun of the "Internet" (which should always be capitalized, and is often not capitalized). AP is making an assumption that any "site" is physically attached to the Internet, or Web and therefore must carry a proper designation. This is simply not the case. Many "sites", which may use HTTP protocols, are not physically attached to the Internet, and are often detatched destinations on private networks, or subsytems (e.g., intranet site, etc.). Therefore, website refers to a generic, rather than a proper noun.

For more reading, see Wikipedia's listing, which tends to agree with TechCrunch. Though, if pressed, I don't really mind if it is website, web site, or Web site. It's your web, not mine.

AP, please feel free to comment on any other style issues you find in this posting. I am sure there are many. :>)