The Top Ten differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Summary: I'm not a big believer in Web 2.0. Your opinion may differ, but the word "Web" is a fancy catch-all phrase for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP, the protocol used for transferring information between a Web server and your Web browser) and the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML, the markup language that tells your browser how to display whatever text, graphics, etc is coming through the HTTP "pipe").
I'm not a big believer in Web 2.0. Your opinion may differ, but the word "Web" is a fancy catch-all phrase for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP, the protocol used for transferring information between a Web server and your Web browser) and the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML, the markup language that tells your browser how to display whatever text, graphics, etc is coming through the HTTP "pipe"). Over at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), there actually are versions of these protocols. HTTP for example is still on version 1.1 and has been since 1999. The most recent of HTML (version 4.01) is just as old. There is something over at the W3C in draft mode called XHTML which is now at version 2.0 and has relevance to the future Web. But a one-to-one mapping of it directly to Web 2.0, especially when you consider how many things have been dropped into the Web 2.0 bucket that don't use XHTML, doesn't work either.
If you looked at all the Web apps and sites that have been dropped into that Web 2.0 bucket, one of the more common ingredients would probably be use of the AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) programming technique -- a technique that generally speaking adds an element of real-time interactivity to Web pages that might otherwise be very static. Google's Gmail e-mail service, for example, uses AJAX to keep your view of the inbox updated as new mail arrives with out having to refresh the entire Web page. I'm fairly certain that AJAX is also the enabler of Gmail's autosave feature (that automatically saves drafts to Gmail's servers for you as you are writing your emails). But threess problems that are common to many if not all AJAX-based pages is how they often interfere with the functionality of a Web browser's back button (in most cases, it either doesn't work, or it takes you back to a page that you don't want to be taken back to). Another is that the forward button (when advancing to a page with AJAX code on it) yields unpredictable results as well. And finally, the same goes for bookmarking AJAX-driven pages. Joe Clark writes about it here.
So, when people ask me what Web 2.0 is, a lot of times, I say "It's when the back button doesn't work! (something that usually works with Web 1.0... but not always). The other thing I say is that I don't think there's a trade or servicemark on "Web 1.0." But O'Reilly has the service mark on Web 2.0. That's a big difference too.
We're looking for the Top Ten difference's between Web 1.0 and 2.0. If you want to chime in, send an email to me at david DOT berlind AT cnet.com with your one-liner. Once we get all the submissions, we'll consolidate and run a poll to see which should make it into the top 10. Then, we'll figure something out for the winners.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
that's funny
As for AJAX and the Back button, I've only read about. Not experienced it. When would I ever need to click Back in Gmail or Yahoo Mail Beta? All the links I need are on the page. Back doesn't make sense in most applications, that's what makes AJAX good to use for apps. Furthermore, there are programming workarounds for making sure the Back button does work.
P.S. Has everyone seen the new and improved microsoft.com? Who knew MS could have one of the coolest sites on the Web?
The main problem I think
RE: The Top Ten differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
top 10 reasons why it should be called "web 7.0" or somehting similar
Top ten things that changed long before anybody even knew of "Web 2.0":
1) We went from ARPANET to the Internet.
2) We went from bulletin boards and a protocol called "gopher" to webpages and http.
3) We started using Hypertext Markup Language.
4) We started using XML & CSS instead of plain HTML.
5) Development of TCP/IP.
6) DNS instead of plain IP addresses.
7) Unicode instead of plain DOS text.
8) Email.
9) Instant Messaging.
10) Wireless access.
This isn't the first - and certainly won't be the last - time that we've experienced new technologies during the development of the Internet. "Web 2.0" is simply a marketing tool and a name for the conferences of O'Reilly, pure and simple.
The top ten times to use the term "Web 2.0":
1) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
2) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
3) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
4) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
5) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
6) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
7) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
8) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
9) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
10) When talking about O'Reilly conferences.
Amen
Just my humble contribution
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006/12/to_know_its_web.html
Bye,
Oliver
Web 2.0 is a marketing gimmick plain and simple.
It tries to justify itself as some sort of "standard" that "all of those in the know" just know is the "right way to do things and definitely the future."
Honestly it's just another version of the big lie technique, keep saying something regardless of veracity until it is taken as fact despite there being no reality behind it.
All these changes, some of which are guided by various cooperating industry hands would happen regardless of the changes being "called web 2.0."
It's another foolish, time-wasting attempt to force the computer industry to homogenize it's standards and practices (when it comes to th web.)
It's the attempt by the anal retentive marketing types to force their needs for some sort of order on a industry that dispises set standards.
If the technology industry wanted/needed standards, we'd have them. We don't have them, because it is still a field of non-stop innovation, and rapid advancement.
In such a chaotic environment, standards and rules like contained in Web 2.0 written by marketeers are worthless, because they do not appreciate the chaos is the reason for a lot of advancement. It isn't a hindrance. Hindering it would stifle innovation.
And no, coming up with superfluous standards is NOT a form of innovation in and of itself like Web 2.0 is.
Web 2.0 will be forgotten but not before it causes some people stay behind while they labor to adhere to web 2.0 standards in an technological environment where such "marketing driven, technological ignorant" movements are about as welcome as severe colonic distress.
Standards
Web 2.5
Did we really need 2.0? Really?
Oh Yes!
A web site is designed to be a thin solution. Most of the "called" web 2 sites are too slow. Web 2 (call it "crispy") is the same that "original" web but with heavier sites, more activity and a LOT of potential flaws. I wonder if I can use the XHTML Request to hack something.
The only difference is that people today have faster access.
The top difference:
- Web 2.0 requires a heavier web browser
Web 2.0 Getting Some Direction
If you are looking for answer to what Web 2.0 could be about, you'll to look back at the microcomputer's market growth. Step by step, from the typewrite, accounting machines, cash registers managed by servers, hand held device to continued attempts in replacing the telephone communications. Set your goals to developing for the large screen by thinking in terms of how the information worker or for yourself as a developer, might work in a large screen environment. Then you'll be thinking XML and Web 2.0. So, what is Web 3.0? Think it over!
Peter Bisson Working on the idea but still needs a lot of work, Check my site at www.freefex.com. Want to give me feedback email page_programming@hotmail.com. Thanks for the opportunity to blog.
</pre>
Web 2.0 Getting Some Direction
Peter Bisson Working on the idea but still needs a lot of work, Check my site at www.freefex.com. Want to give me feedback email page_programming@hotmail.com. Thanks for the opportunity to blog.
Web 2.0 Getting Some Direction
Peter Bisson Working on the idea but still needs a lot of work, Check my site at www.freefex.com. Want to give me feedback email page_programming@hotmail.com. Thanks for the opportunity to blog.
The biggest difference for me...
Biggest difference?
I tried to use it the other week, crashed firefox... (on linux!)
More importantly...
J.Ja
What we really need...
What is Web 2.0?
Web 2.0 fully implements integrated functionality.
The line between the personal computer and the internet (or any other network) disappears. Your desktop becomes an active browser window (in fact, so does the operating system). The Start menu/Favorites/My Documents/My Pictures/My Music/etc. are all integrated into the same UI/tool bar menu. The Task Bar becomes tabbed browsing. Sometimes (when browsing a particular website) the back button works because it makes sense in that application. Sometimes (when I am working on a document or reading email) the back button does not work (or even appear) because it doesn't make sense in that application. Websites are sometimes browsable pages (Web 1.0) and sometimes applications (Web 2.0). Applications and files sometimes exist on the network (Web 2.0) and sometimes on the PC (Web 1.0). The user doesn't really care where things are located, only that the are accessible and fulfill a specific need. In fact, computing becomes so transparent that the user needs to stop and think about whether the data being accessed is located on the PC or on the network (not that one would need to do so very often). Finally, I will carry my user profile on a VM USB flash drive (or similar device) so that "my" computer (with access to my files on my "home" PC) is available on any computer located anywhere.
In other words
I have nothing against the technologies (well, except perhaps the idea that other companies are vying for control of my data, instead of it being on my own computer) - just the name people are using. It's not accurate in any way.