What is XHTML

What is XHTML?

The evolution of HTML has essentially stopped. Instead, HTML is being replaced by a new language, called XHTML. XHTML is in many ways similar to HTML, but is designed to work with the new eXtensible Markup Language, or XML, that will soon serve as the core language for designing all sorts of new Web applications, in which XHTML will be only one of many "languages." But, XHTML is designed to work with these other language, so that different documents, in different languages, can be easily mixed together.

For this to work, the rules for writing HTML documents had to change. These rules are simple, and are as follows:

1. All tag and attribute names must be in lowercase. Thus, you can't write
...
but must instead write this in lowercase, as :
...

2. "Empty" tags must be written with an extra slash at the end. An empty tag is one like
or that doesn't have a
or to end it. In XHTML, such tags must be written as:
, and .

3. You can never omit an end tag. With HTML, you could sometimes leave off an end tag, as in

..... paragraph text

..... more paragraph text
With XHTML, you must always put in the end tag, so that the preceding must be written as:

..... paragraph text

..... more paragraph text

4. Attributes must always have a value. In HTML you can sometimes omit atttibute values, as in

---

in XHTML, this would need to be written as:

---

5. Attributes values must always be quoted.. In HTML you can sometimes omit the quotes,as in

---

in XHTML, this would need to be written as:

---

That's about it -- there are a few more subtle details, but essentially if you follow the above rules, then the documents you write are acceptable as XHTML. Thus it's easy to write up Web pages using the XHTML format -- they will work with today's HTML browsers, and are easily upward-compatible for the next-generation of Web browsers.

Web 3.0 Definition 3

Some folks have been asking me for the clear definition of the term Web 3.0.

* Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.

Web 2.0 services are now the commoditized platform, not the final product. In a world where a social network, wiki, or social bookmarking service can be built for free and in an instant, what's next?

Web 2.0 services like digg and YouTube evolve into Web 3.0 services with an additional layer of individual excellence and focus. As an example, funnyordie.com leverages all the standard YouTube Web 2.0 feature sets like syndication and social networking, while adding a layer of talent and trust to them.

A version of digg where experts check the validity of claims, corrected errors, and restated headlines to be more accurate would be the Web 3.0 version. However, I'm not sure if the digg community will embrace that any time soon.

Wikipedia, considered a Web 1.5 service, is experiencing the start of the Web 3.0 movement by locking pages down as they reach completion, and (at least in their German version) requiring edits to flow through trusted experts.

Also of note, is what Web 3.0 leaves behind. Web 3.0 throttles the "wisdom of the crowds" from turning into the "madness of the mobs" we've seen all to often, by balancing it with a respect of experts. Web 3.0 leaves behind the cowardly anonymous contributors and the selfish blackhat SEOs that have polluted and diminished so many communities.

Web 3.0 is a return to what was great about media and technology before Web 2.0: recognizing talent and expertise, the ownership of ones words, and fairness. It's time to evolve, shall we?

[ Note: Make sure you read the update on the unauthorized comments. I also added quotes around official since some folks actually thought that I had the power to lay down the official definition of what our industry will be doing over the next 10 years--really. :-) ]

* Oct 3rd 2007 9:30PM
* Permalink
* Email this
* Linking Blogs
* Comments [55]

Recent Posts

* Official announcement regarding my retirement from blogging. (7/11/2008)
* iPhone 3g -- are you getting one or not? (7/11/2008)
* Mahalo Guide Notes in Yahoo/Google results (beta) (7/08/2008)
* Twitter's milkshake meet FriendFeed's straw (7/06/2008)
* How to make red velvet cake and more... (7/05/2008)

Reader Comments
(Page 3 of 3)

41. Great linkbait JC! Ironically you are clearly one of the best SEO folks out there.
*
This definition seems odd to me. You've simply said 3.0 is "gifted 2.0". I prefer what O'Reilly has suggested - that 3.0 will be all the 2.0 goodness with vast networks of integrated data points with lots of real time data.

Posted at 3:37PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Joe Duck

42. More and more I am less and less able to tolerate your thoughts and opinions.

I used to really enjoy your ramblings.

Posted at 3:47PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Rick

43. Interesting thought. Even if this is mostly describing Mahalo, I think that the common belief that web 3.0 is semantic web has to go. Semantic web is way too unclear now (especially because I don't see a killer user benefit there) and, in the best case scenario, 10 years away. I have a feeling that something else is coming from the mountains while everybody is watching the sea. Jason's explaination is an intriguing one even if it's moving to places where hardcore web 2.0 people may not want to go (ie is reintroducing some form of central control). It's still to be seen if the need for simplicity is the key insight here. I doubt it but if Mahalo is going to be a success it will make a point for him.

Posted at 4:07PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Simone

44. Let's assume that there is some distinct phenomenon called Web 2.0, characterized by data sharing, tagging, etc. Whatever the specific definition, Web 2.0 shares with Web 1.0 the defining characteristic of being URL-specific. That is, users gotta go to a specific Web site (Flickr, Facebook, Google Earth, whatever.) to experience Web 2.0 at play.

So it seems to me that anything we call Web 3.0 would, at the very least, untether users from any specific domain. That is, all the richness associated with Web 2.0 tagging, mashups, etc. could be delivered to users in a contextually relevant manner as they travel from site to site.

Posted at 5:03PM on Oct 4th 2007 by P'ang

45. Umm... let's suppose it is the way you say it is, but there's one thing that puzzles me. You say that the "Web 3.0 throttles the "wisdom of the crowds" from turning into the "madness of the mobs" we've seen all to often, by balancing it with a respect of experts." Who are those experts, who chooses them and on which criteria?

The problem that I see is the fact that the real experts have better things to do than to "balance" information on the web.

Posted at 5:03PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Armannd

46. Great definition.
But maybe it's easier.
See my small cartoon:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/10/it-is-that-easy.html

Bye,
Oliver

Posted at 5:09PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Oliver Widder

47. To quote a very intelligent friend of mine, the Web 3.0 is the place where all the Web 2.0 archipelagos of content become a Pangaea. Or something like that. Pretty sure that's what he said anyway. Hell, what do I know. I'm just trying to earn a living using this stuff. I'll leave it to the über-geeks to figure it out. Good try though, Jason.

Posted at 6:19PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Paul Chaney

48. I like this definition, but I'm not in complete agreement - where is the mention of social networks and user-generated content sites and other data silos will be connected? I'd like to hope that, in the future, our networks will be networked, creating a richer experience for all.

Posted at 6:32PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jacqueline

49. Web 3.0 = Google News (machines)
Web 2.0 = Digg (people)
Web 1.0 = New York Times (original)

Web 3.0 = ZoomInfo.com (disclaimer: i work here)
Web 2.0 = LinkedIn.com
Web 1.0 = Hoovers.com

Web 3.0 = Indeed.com
Web 2.0 = Jobster.com
Web 1.0 = Monster.com

Web 3.0 applications use technology to find and utilize content that has been created by others to deliver new content with greater value and coverage than the originals alone.

Web 2.0 applications use people to find and create content to deliver new content.

Web 1.0 applications use original content.

But who cares about the definition?? The value is not in the definition of the term, but in the disruptive nature of each generation. By innovating ahead of the "content creation curve," costs are lowered, coverage is increased, and business models get disruptive. Whatever it's called...

Posted at 1:05AM on Oct 5th 2007 by Russell Glass

50. Hmm...I find this argument unconvincing. Vetted content isn't Web 3.0, it's how publishing has always worked. Scientific peer review, maybe?

Nor do I find all the arguments that say that Web 3.0 is the semantic web to be convincing.

The real difference between Web 2.0 and the semantic web is that the Semantic Web seems to think we need to add new kinds of markup to data in order to make it more meaningful to computers, while Web 2.0 seeks to identify areas where the meaning is already encoded, albeit in hidden ways. E.g. Google found meaning in link structure (a natural RDF triple); Wesabe is finding it in spending patterns.

There are sites (geni.com comes to mind) that create narrow-purpose cases where people add structured meaning, and I think we'll find lots more of these. But I think that the big difference is in the amount of noise you accept in your meaningful data, and whether you think grammar evolves from data or is imposed upon it. Web 2.0 applications are fundamentally statistical in nature, collective intelligence as derived from lots and lots of input at global scale.

See my various posts on Web 2.0 vs. the Semantic Web.

Meanwhile, Web 2.0 was a pretty crappy name for what's happening (Microsoft's name, Live Software, is probably the best description of what's happening), so I don't see why we'd want to increment it to Web 3.0. But when people ask me what I think Web 3.0 will be, I don't think of the semantic web at all.

What are things that will give a qualitative leap beyond what we experience today?

I think it's the breaking of the keyboard/screen paradigm, and the world in which collective intelligence emerges not from people typing on keyboards but from the instrumentation of our activities.

In this sense, I'd say that Wesabe and Mint, which turn our credit card into a sensor telling us about tracks we're leaving in the real world, or Jaiku, which turns our phone into a sensor for a smart address book, or Norwich Union's "Pay as you drive" insurance, are more early signals of something I'd call "Web 3.0" than Semantic Web applications are. Add in a dash of Nuance's voice recognition and the Nintendo Wii's gestural interface, and you are starting to build the stone soup that might one day be called Web 3.0.

Let's just call the Semantic Web the Semantic Web, and not muddy the water by trying to call it Web 3.0, especially when the points of contrast are actually the same points that I used to distinguish Web 2.0 from Web 1.5. (I've always said that Web 2.0 = Web 1.0, with the dot com bust being a side trip that got it wrong.)

Posted at 1:40AM on Oct 5th 2007 by Tim O'Reilly

51. I think the most important thing that's going to happen in the future is web 0.0. Web 0.0 is a web application built by a sole proprietor, without venture funding that is profitable, self supporting, and provides a sustainable income for the owner/author. The technologies and details do not matter---a skillful author will pick and choose what's appropriate. Web 0.0 is founded in fair terms and conditions, ethical ownership, and a personal interest of the owner/author. Web 0.0 will be the predecessor of 0.0 businesses in the real world as a more kindly society exchanges corporate largesse for a direct, personal experience. I hope people will seek out and support web 0.0 entrepreneurs. People who suck the teat of venture capital will find Web 0.0 confusing and frustrating and I further define web "X.0" as any venture funded internet company that is not a sole proprietorship that is formed around some compelling technology or story for the benefit of investors.

Posted at 11:34AM on Oct 5th 2007 by John e.

52. C'mon man...What you think we are ?? bunch of idiots ??

Posted at 4:59AM on Oct 6th 2007 by Jason Haris

53. You just seem to be an ex-journalist that doesn't want to lose money...

Right now, I like not having editors. Don't editors have their own bias? Why not get right to what people care about? That's right, I said people, not a select few, or "gifted individuals", as you say.

Posted at 12:41PM on Oct 6th 2007 by Kabren Levinson

54. Right, that's one way to put it. If Web 1.0 was about linking information then Web 2.0 is definitely about linking people. If Web 2.0 is about linking people, Web 3.0 will be about connecting and making semantic sense of people's knowledge. Bringing together two disjointed pieces of content, computing, and creating new incremental value. For example, you could ask a semantic engine what the difference between The Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower is and the engine would find both pieces of knowledge and calculate the difference.

-arnaud

Posted at 8:15AM on Oct 7th 2007 by Arnaud Fischer

55. Web 2.0 was about the socialization of technology. But more than that, it was the 2000s version of the Apple II -- all about "taking back what's ours" from the gatekeepers (the Apple II blew open the hallowed doors of IT, unleashing do-it-yourself data dissemination -- Lotus 123 instead of mainframes, MS Word instead of typing pools, DTP instead of big publishing houses, Flash instead of cell animation, and ultimately HTML and Web 2.0 instead of Arbitron/Neilson ratings).

The online video purveyors (YouTube, et al) succeeded because now anyone can make or copy a video and not need the glitz and money of Hollywood to get attention. Blogs, wikis, et al, are about giving access to reading audiences without the stodginess (or gimme-gimme-gimme) of the FOX/NBC/ABCs, NY/LA Timeses, and TV Guide/USA Todays of the world. Whether the federal courts and RIAA liked it or not, that's what file sharing was all about -- taking CBS/Capital/EMI records out of the loop between listeners and music. Note that Napster as a social phenomenon is gone, but file sharing and freely trading MP3s (illegally or not) among like-minded groups is not dead and never will be.

To link web 2.0 together, in the same breath, with the kind of editorial control and refinement/self-protection of pre-web media -- and call it Web 3.0 -- is ludicrous. As soon as that reality happens (oh, and it will), the real Web 3.0 will rear up and strike off toward some other kind of freedom from corporatization/monetization/squelchification. The article got it wrong, Web 3.0 will be about decommoditization. Like everything else bleeding edge, we won't recognize it until it happens.

Don't kid yourselves that adding a level of control to something that was initially a way to escape the constraints of control will stay controlled for long. No matter whether we like the ramifications or not -- the potential for libelous, criminal, or cowardly behavior -- Web 2.0 is not about being commoditized. Package it and the moving finger will move on, leaving Yahoo, Google, (and maybe Facebook/MySpace/Flickr/Del.icio.us) and all the other whores wondering "where did it go."

The dot.bomb was not about the sudden collapse of the bubble (yes, that happened, but ...), it was about the migration of fed-up end users from the control of venture-capital-based economics. Start-ups without serious at-risk investor-driven funding faired well. Web 2.0 faired well until it became merely another source of advertising revenue (and buy-ins/buy-outs by the big corporations).

Web 3.0 will be none of these things. It will not be trendy or polished or capital intensive or fee based. It will be long-haired, young, full of warts, underfunded (or free) and grass-roots. And once again, it will steal away the very user audience the trendy/polished/capital-intensive/fee-based Wall Street bloat-bags desperately desire/need, leaving some to cry "foul" and others to figure out how to tap into it as a business.

The cycle is endless. And we still read Kahlil Gibran because -- even before the Titanic sank with his manuscripts (by then collectors items) -- he was right. The moving finger writes and having writ, never pauses to see if what it wrote could be commoditized.

Web 3.0 Definition 2

Web 3.0, the "official" definition.

Some folks have been asking me for the clear definition of the term Web 3.0.

* Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.

Web 2.0 services are now the commoditized platform, not the final product. In a world where a social network, wiki, or social bookmarking service can be built for free and in an instant, what's next?

Web 2.0 services like digg and YouTube evolve into Web 3.0 services with an additional layer of individual excellence and focus. As an example, funnyordie.com leverages all the standard YouTube Web 2.0 feature sets like syndication and social networking, while adding a layer of talent and trust to them.

A version of digg where experts check the validity of claims, corrected errors, and restated headlines to be more accurate would be the Web 3.0 version. However, I'm not sure if the digg community will embrace that any time soon.

Wikipedia, considered a Web 1.5 service, is experiencing the start of the Web 3.0 movement by locking pages down as they reach completion, and (at least in their German version) requiring edits to flow through trusted experts.

Also of note, is what Web 3.0 leaves behind. Web 3.0 throttles the "wisdom of the crowds" from turning into the "madness of the mobs" we've seen all to often, by balancing it with a respect of experts. Web 3.0 leaves behind the cowardly anonymous contributors and the selfish blackhat SEOs that have polluted and diminished so many communities.

Web 3.0 is a return to what was great about media and technology before Web 2.0: recognizing talent and expertise, the ownership of ones words, and fairness. It's time to evolve, shall we?

[ Note: Make sure you read the update on the unauthorized comments. I also added quotes around official since some folks actually thought that I had the power to lay down the official definition of what our industry will be doing over the next 10 years--really. :-) ]

* Oct 3rd 2007 9:30PM
* Permalink
* Email this
* Linking Blogs
* Comments [55]

Recent Posts

* Official announcement regarding my retirement from blogging. (7/11/2008)
* iPhone 3g -- are you getting one or not? (7/11/2008)
* Mahalo Guide Notes in Yahoo/Google results (beta) (7/08/2008)
* Twitter's milkshake meet FriendFeed's straw (7/06/2008)
* How to make red velvet cake and more... (7/05/2008)

Reader Comments
(Page 2 of 3)

21. Whew! Glad that's solved!

Posted at 8:34AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Michael Julson

22. Hi Jason, I agree with you on the aspect of usage of the current platforms in next generation services. However, since allmost all of them are destination based (walled gardens) it won't be easy to make the next step. All social network creators, for example, are trying to increase their value by enlarging and leveraging their network, instead of focussing on true user value. We need a much more open structure and service creators that create user value. I have written several posts about this subject and gotten some really smart responses on them. If interested check out:
http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/the-flaws-in-web-20-and-how-to-correct-them/
From this a new discussion starts where we are looking at ways to describe this next generation services, where I think Social Interaction will be the key feature. It isn't the network, or the user profile that really creates value. It is also not just about talent, it is the interaction between people. For more on that see:
http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/design-of-an-open-social-interaction-network-human-needs/

Posted at 8:36AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Alexander van Elsas

23. Lame!

Posted at 8:38AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Eric

24. Reminds me of this memorable Dilbert strip:

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070909.html

Posted at 9:56AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Peter Thomas

25. Actually, it read as though Jason is saying Web 2.0 was inspired by the freemarket views of Adam Smith and Web 3.0 will be inspired by Stalin's revolution from above!

Web 3.0: Long live the managed web! (?)

Posted at 9:57AM on Oct 4th 2007 by lucia

26. So by this definition, would my blog be considered Web 3.0? .. focusing on the high-quality part.

Posted at 9:58AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Paul Stamatiou

27. With all due respect for your accomplishments to date, excellence in anything is rare. To paint the next evolution of Web development as being defined by excellence or even "high quality" is an exercise in naivete, in my opinion.

Posted at 10:06AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jeffrey

28. Jason

an interesting premise, but I'm not sure I agree. Surely the 'Web 3.0' digg, Wikipedia or whatever is one in which the behaviour and reaction of site visitors is put to use, rather than expecting 'expert' users to actively intervene more often?

Web 2.0 - whether you like the name or not - has given us much. We've seen the rise of participation, but that participation has tended to exist in a growing number of relatively isolated islands. My behaviour on digg does not reflect upon my use of Wikipedia, etc. With growing semantic manipulation of the content and its use by people (clickstreams and more), we open up new opportunities to enrich the user experience with reference to previous uses by yourself and by others.

This isn't the "Semantic Web", but it's brought about by a pragmatic integration of 'semantic technologies' with the approaches and crowds of 'Web 2.0'.

And it's not a long way off, either.

Posted at 10:22AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Paul Miller

29. Please... More like: "Web 3.0, a definition suited to my trying to sell mahalo.com..." or somehting like that.

Congrats for the noise, though, it should make up for the declining page views in mahalo.com...

Posted at 10:24AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jope

30. Having spent yesterday at FOWA (http://www.futureofwebapps.com/) in London, it's pretty clear that it should have been called "State of..." rather than "Future of...". That's the glory of today's web, no one genuinely knows where it will end up, so it's a bit early to be declaring and defining Web 3.0. Unilateral declaration of of an "official definition" is likely to annoy one or two people as well, so I shall watch proceedings with interest.

Posted at 10:24AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Matt

31. Hi

You're all wrong. I think you haven't seen world's first Web3.0 website - http://nowasciana.pl/

Cheers,
Paulo

Posted at 10:27AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Paulo

32. Absurd

Posted at 10:34AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Nate Westheimer

33. Hey Jason -- Ok, if "creating high quality content" implies "using the Semantic Web" to do it, then I agree. I've written extensively about defining Web 3.0 on my blog. In general I think it is best defined as the third-decade of the Web (2010 - 2020), where the focus is on upgrading the backend of the Web (for example using RDF).

Posted at 11:05AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Nova Spivack

34. Great info and great insight, just added to Wikpedia.

Posted at 11:28AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Bill Hartzer

35. Jason,

you are defining web 0.0

Web 1.0 had webmasters doing all the dirty work
Web 2.0 has the users doing this..
and in your definition,
Web 3.0 will have users doing the dirty work and then the editors(or webmaster, whatever) cleaning that off!

Posted at 11:29AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Anand

36. I disagree. I believe Web 3.0 is going to be the full convergence of the web (IP) with older broadcast and distribution channels (tv, radio, mobile/voice, etc.) and the services that support it. This is why everything you are seeing happen is happening right now and it's going to drive the web more than anything else in the future. The content and services are the smaller part of the picture.

I can understand the 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 reference to the web because it's so common in technology development but I think it's what's under the internet, not on top, that will define the next generation of usage.

Just my .2







Posted at 1:15PM on Oct 4th 2007 by patricia

37. Such pretentious drivel. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry. Get over yourself.

Posted at 1:52PM on Oct 4th 2007 by Paul

38. Web 3.0 = Semantic Web

What you see people building on Web 2.0 platforms are really Web 2.0 services.

Posted at 1:57PM on Oct 4th 2007 by alex

39. So your opinion is that Web 3.0 will be a locked down version of Web 2.0, with Mahalo as a shining example.

I think you're going in absolutely the wrong direction, but it's obviously what you believe, as you're putting your efforts in that direction.

Web 3.0, the "official" definition

Web 3.0, the "official" definition.

Some folks have been asking me for the clear definition of the term Web 3.0.

* Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.

Web 2.0 services are now the commoditized platform, not the final product. In a world where a social network, wiki, or social bookmarking service can be built for free and in an instant, what's next?

Web 2.0 services like digg and YouTube evolve into Web 3.0 services with an additional layer of individual excellence and focus. As an example, funnyordie.com leverages all the standard YouTube Web 2.0 feature sets like syndication and social networking, while adding a layer of talent and trust to them.

A version of digg where experts check the validity of claims, corrected errors, and restated headlines to be more accurate would be the Web 3.0 version. However, I'm not sure if the digg community will embrace that any time soon.

Wikipedia, considered a Web 1.5 service, is experiencing the start of the Web 3.0 movement by locking pages down as they reach completion, and (at least in their German version) requiring edits to flow through trusted experts.

Also of note, is what Web 3.0 leaves behind. Web 3.0 throttles the "wisdom of the crowds" from turning into the "madness of the mobs" we've seen all to often, by balancing it with a respect of experts. Web 3.0 leaves behind the cowardly anonymous contributors and the selfish blackhat SEOs that have polluted and diminished so many communities.

Web 3.0 is a return to what was great about media and technology before Web 2.0: recognizing talent and expertise, the ownership of ones words, and fairness. It's time to evolve, shall we?

[ Note: Make sure you read the update on the unauthorized comments. I also added quotes around official since some folks actually thought that I had the power to lay down the official definition of what our industry will be doing over the next 10 years--really. :-) ]

* Oct 3rd 2007 9:30PM
* Permalink
* Email this
* Linking Blogs
* Comments [55]

Recent Posts

* Official announcement regarding my retirement from blogging. (7/11/2008)
* iPhone 3g -- are you getting one or not? (7/11/2008)
* Mahalo Guide Notes in Yahoo/Google results (beta) (7/08/2008)
* Twitter's milkshake meet FriendFeed's straw (7/06/2008)
* How to make red velvet cake and more... (7/05/2008)

Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 3)

1. I have to say Jason that I disagree.
Your definition of 3.0 just described Mahalo.
Web 3.0 is the semantic web in my opinion.

Posted at 9:57PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Dillon

2. Dude, you just triggered a gag reflex in me. Web 3.0? I just can't wait for this Web 2.0 fad to blow over so we can get down to some real business.

Posted at 10:10PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Ara Pehlivanian

3. Jason,

You mention funnyordie.com in your definition, which as you know, is a portfolio company of Sequoia Capital.

In that light, and the fact that you said "...experts check the validity of claims..." means you fail your own definition.

If you are trying to gear up for a buyout or something, that's fine, but please spare us the sales pitch.

Posted at 10:26PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Michael Bailey

4. @Aaron Brazell:

Touché! I admit, I bought into it way back when, and in my defense, there is a re-design in the works. ;-)

I still hate the buzzword, and I still think it only serves the purposes of marketing types. "Web 2.0" has no foundation in the nuts and bolts world of actual web development.

Posted at 10:26PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Ara Pehlivanian

5. Hey Jason, I think you are off on this one. I posted my thoughts here: http://blog.adaptiveblue.com/?p=636

Alex

Posted at 10:43PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Alex Iskold

6. I have to agree with the first commenter here - you've just redefined "Web 3.0" so that it fits in with where Mahalo is heading. That's quite clever, but too obvious!

The most common definition of "Web 3.0" relates to the semantic web and microformats, not teams of 'experts' trawling through the crap and creating how-to pages (though there definitely is a market for that too!)

Posted at 10:53PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by stuart

7. Ugh...when will people get off this whole 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 thing? Web 2.0 is a conference and expo. Just because people started doing things differently and started using new tools, that doesn't mean there was/is/will be a new version of the Internet. And how can ANYONE "define" Web 3.0 at the moment anyway? I have heard no less than 8 definitions of "Web 3.0" since July - and all are vastly different from each other. Sheez.

Posted at 10:53PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Andru Edwards

8. Aren't we past the whole "versionista" thing by now?

Posted at 10:57PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Phil Gomes

9. Hey Jason, I agree with the need for evolution and reform, but I think you're talking about Web 2.1.

3.0 - The Semantic Web

http://bub.blicio.us/?p=432

Posted at 11:25PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Brian Solis

10. But... but... will Web 3.0 matter? Does Web 2.0 "matter"?

Can we stop worrying about who has the right to define our experiences and focus on doing something productive instead?

Posted at 11:56PM on Oct 3rd 2007 by Justin Kownacki

11. That's one thing I'm starting to do with Cheww.com, allowing for spam-free search of foodblogs. This is done by maintaining a white list of more than a thousand sites, adding and removing as appropriate.

http://cheww.com

Posted at 12:51AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jonah

12. This is so far wrong, I can't even describe it. What you want is proper Web 2.0, not Web 3.0. Web 3.0 will be a paradigm shift, not unlike Web 2.0 was to Web 1.0. It is the difference between how one uses the internet and how one lives the internet. Web 2.0, failed or not, was a shift in how people responded to online content. Web 3,0, like Web 2.0, will be how people interact with the web. Mobile advances is one, as I see the untethering from mouses and keyboards. Certainly not the only possibility. Certainly not the correction of Web 2.0.

In all failures, there are building blocks to be built upon. We've seen that already and history repeats itself. Rarely does reinventing what already exists constitute any kind of revolution.

I respect you, Jason, but you're seriously shortsighted here.

Posted at 3:21AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Aaron Brazell

13. "Dude, you just triggered a gag reflex in me. Web 3.0? I just can't wait for this Web 2.0 fad to blow over so we can get down to some real business."

Says the guy who has Web 2.0 colors, rounded corners and a big-ass logo that screams Web 2.0 on his site. ;-)

Posted at 3:22AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Aaron Brazell

14. Here's another theory: Web 3.0 cannot, by definition, occur until after the next tech crash.

Posted at 3:59AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jon

15. Web1.0 or 2.0 both were about technology. Web3.0 can't be about mechanical turks.

Posted at 4:03AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Talat.

16. Hi, I think there will be no Web 3.0. We just needed to mark the new generation of web services and quantify the quality progress. I do not believe such a significant change (internet has become a platform) is going to repeat in future. Internet is not a teenager anymore :)

Posted at 5:15AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jan Horna

17. No SIr, you are maybe talking about Online Journalism 3.0 or Online Editing 3.0, not Web 3.0. Also, the web is there for anyone independent of intelligence. So, I fear that your definition of Web 3.0 is bias, elitist and excludes those "ungifted people" who under 3.0 must be embraced and thy be capable of becoming produser also. So for a Web 3.0, please stick to Schmidt's given definition that Web 3.0 are "applications that are pieced together" and that mediation will be possible to a "greater level as we would all be online as content will be retrieved quicker, all we would need is our thumb, and less use of the mouse."

Posted at 5:44AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Kino

18. Sounds more like a bug fix release Web 2.0.1

Posted at 7:18AM on Oct 4th 2007 by Jack @ The Tech Teapot

19. You're absolutely right, that's why I have gone back to the forums that I helped build.

Posted at 7:48AM on Oct 4th 2007 by David B. Litsky

20. Jason. If I would were you, I'd duck! quickly!

This is not Web 3.0.

Web 2.0 was/is about leveraging data standards and technology to enable applications to talk to eachother 'under the hood' (ajax etc.) to help create Rich Internet Applications pulling data from multiple sources (mashups) while improving the user experience and bandwidth costs with less full page loads ...

Web 3.0 (imho) is about evolving, exploring and exposing the relationship between those data sources to create further data standards, platforms and ultimately tools to leverage this even further. Creating and viewing the 'dna' of the web. Having the ability to navigate that skeleton/structure which semantically connects those pieces of data.

Look at 'web 2.0' and 'zoom out' in your mind. Not in. Or to one side. eg: Look at a fractal image and zoom out and out, again and again. Appreciate the beauty of the whole system and how things connect. Not just one element of it.

Then you might see where we're going.

imho. ;)

Trademark

Trademark

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[33] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[34] but retracted it two days later.[35] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, but as of June 12, 2006 the PTO had not published the mark for opposition. The European Union application (application number 004972212, which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland) remains currently pending after its filing on March 23, 2006.

Trademark

Trademark

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[33] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[34] but retracted it two days later.[35] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, but as of June 12, 2006 the PTO had not published the mark for opposition. The European Union application (application number 004972212, which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland) remains currently pending after its filing on March 23, 2006.

Criticism

Criticism

The argument exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts. Techniques such as AJAX do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already been featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[27] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino.

In a podcast interview Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon." "Nobody really knows what it means," he said, and went on to say that "if Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."[5]

Other criticism has included the term “a second bubble” (referring to the Dot-com bubble of circa 1995–2001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. The Economist has written of "Bubble 2.0."[28]

Venture capitalist Josh Kopelman noted that Web 2.0 excited only 530,651 people (the number of subscribers to TechCrunch, a Weblog covering Web 2.0 matters), too few users to make them an economically viable target for consumer applications.[29]

Although Bruce Sterling reports he's a fan of Web 2.0, he thinks it is now dead as a rallying concept.[30]

A few critics cite the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0 [31] as an example of Techno-utopianist rhetoric.[32] Furthermore, Web 2.0 is not the first example of communication creating a false, hyper-inflated sense of the value of technology and its impact on culture. The dot com bust of the year 2000 was a culmination of rhetoric of the technological sublime. Communication as culture: essays on media and society (1989) and the technologies worth as represented in the stock market. Indeed, several years before the dot com stock market crash the then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan equated the run up of stock values as irrational exuberance. Shortly before the crash of 2000 a book by Shiller, Robert J. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. was released detailing the overly optimistic euphoria of the dot com industry. The book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (2006) even goes as far as to quote critics of the value of Web 2.0 in an attempt to acknowledge that hyper inflated expectations exist but that Web 2.0 is really different.

Economics

Economics

The analysis of the economic implications of "Web 2.0" applications and loosely-associated technologies such as wikis, blogs, social-networking, open-source, open-content, file-sharing, peer-production, etc. has also gained scientific attention. This area of research investigates the implications Web 2.0 has for an economy and the principles underlying the economy of Web 2.0.

Cass Sunstein's book "Infotopia" discussed the Hayekian nature of collaborative production, characterized by decentralized decision-making, directed by (often non-monetary) prices rather than central planners in business or government.

Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams argue in their book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (2006) that the economy of "the new web" depends on mass collaboration. Tapscott and Williams regard it as important for new media companies to find ways of how to make profit with the help of Web 2.0.[citation needed] The prospective Internet-based economy that they term "Wikinomics" would depend on the principles of openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally. They identify seven Web 2.0 business-models (peer pioneers, ideagoras, prosumers, new Alexandrians, platforms for participation, global plantfloor, wiki workplace).[citation needed]

Organizations could make use of these principles and models in order to prosper with the help of Web 2.0-like applications: "Companies can design and assemble products with their customers, and in some cases customers can do the majority of the value creation".[23] "In each instance the traditionally passive buyers of editorial and advertising take active, participatory roles in value creation."[24] Tapscott and Williams suggest business strategies as "models where masses of consumers, employees, suppliers, business partners, and even competitors cocreate value in the absence of direct managerial control".[25] Tapscott and Williams see the outcome as an economic democracy.

Some other views in the scientific debate agree with Tapscott and Williams that value-creation increasingly depends on harnessing open source/content, networking, sharing, and peering, but disagree that this will result in an economic democracy, predicting a subtle form and deepening of exploitation, in which Internet-based global outsourcing reduces labour-costs by transferring jobs from workers in wealthy nations to workers in poor nations. In such a view, the economic implications of a new web might include on the one hand the emergence of new business-models based on global outsourcing, whereas on the other hand non-commercial online platforms could undermine profit-making and anticipate a co-operative economy. For example, Tiziana Terranova speaks of "free labor" (performed without payment) in the case where prosumers produce surplus value in the circulation-sphere of the cultural industries

Web APIs

Web APIs

Machine-based interaction, a common feature of Web 2.0 sites, uses two main approaches to Web APIs, which allow web-based access to data and functions: REST and SOAP.

1. REST (Representational State Transfer) Web APIs use HTTP alone to interact, with XML (eXtensible Markup Language) or JSON payloads;
2. SOAP involves POSTing more elaborate XML messages and requests to a server that may contain quite complex, but pre-defined, instructions for the server to follow.

Often servers use proprietary APIs, but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into wide use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads.

See also Web Services Description Language (WSDL) (the standard way of publishing a SOAP API) and this list of Web Service specifications

XML and RSS

XML and RSS

Advocates of "Web 2.0" may regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature, involving as it does standardized protocols, which permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another website, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols which permit syndication include RSS (Really Simple Syndication — also known as "web syndication"), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of them XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as "Web feed" as the usability of Web 2.0 evolves and the more user-friendly Feeds icon supplants the RSS icon.

Specialized protocols

Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized websites.

Rich Internet applications

Rich Internet applications

Main article: Rich Internet application

This section does not cite any references or sources. (November 2007)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Rich-Internet application techniques such as AJAX, Adobe Flash, Flex, Java, Silverlight and Curl have evolved that have the potential to improve the user-experience in browser-based applications. The technologies allow a web-page to request an update for some part of its content, and to alter that part in the browser, without needing to refresh the whole page at the same time.

Server-side software

Functionally, Web 2.0 applications build on the existing Web server architecture, but rely much more heavily on back-end software. Syndication differs only nominally from the methods of publishing using dynamic content management, but web services typically require much more robust database and workflow support, and become very similar to the traditional intranet functionality of an application server.

Client-side software

The extra functionality provided by Web 2.0 depends on the ability of users to work with the data stored on servers. This can come about through forms in an HTML page, through a scripting-language such as Javascript / Ajax, or through Flash, Curl Applets or Java Applets. These methods all make use of the client computer to reduce server workloads and to increase the responsiveness of the application.

Web-based applications and desktops

Web-based applications and desktops

Ajax has prompted the development of websites that mimic desktop applications, such as word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Still other sites perform collaboration and project management functions. In 2006 Google, Inc. acquired one of the best-known sites of this broad class, Writely.[19]

Several browser-based "operating systems" have emerged, including EyeOS[20] and YouOS[21]. They essentially function as application platforms, not as operating systems per se. These services mimic the user experience of desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment. They have as their distinguishing characteristic the ability to run within any modern browser.

Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers. In 2005, WebEx acquired one of the better-known of these, Intranets.com, for USD45 million.

Associated innovations

Associated innovations

It is a common misconception that "Web 2.0" refers to various visual design elements such as rounded corners or drop shadows. While such design elements have commonly been found on popular Web 2.0 sites, the association is more one of fashion, a designer preference which became popular around the same time that "Web 2.0" became a buzz word.

Another common misassociation with Web 2.0 is AJAX. This error probably comes about because many Web 2.0 sites rely heavily on AJAX or associated DHTML effects. So while AJAX is often required for Web 2.0 sites to function well, it is (usually) not required for them to function.

The Freemium business model is also characteristic of many Web 2.0 sites, with the idea that core basic services are given away for free, in order to build a large user base by word-of-mouth marketing. Premium service would then be offered for a price.

Technology overview

Technology overview

The sometimes complex and continually evolving technology infrastructure of Web 2.0 includes server-software, content-syndication, messaging-protocols, standards-oriented browsers with plugins and extensions, and various client-applications. The differing, yet complementary approaches of such elements provide Web 2.0 sites with information-storage, creation, and dissemination challenges and capabilities that go beyond what the public formerly expected in the environment of the so-called "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features/techniques:

* Cascading Style Sheets to aid in the separation of presentation and content
* Folksonomies (collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging)
* Microformats extending pages with additional semantics
* REST and/or XML- and/or JSON-based APIs
* Rich Internet application techniques, often Ajax and/or Flex,Flash-based
* Semantically valid XHTML and HTML markup
* Syndication, aggregation and notification of data in RSS or Atom feeds
* mashups, merging content from different sources, client- and server-side
* Weblog-publishing tools
* wiki or forum software, etc., to support user-generated content
* Internet privacy, the extended power of users to manage their own privacy in cloaking or deleting their own user content or profiles.

Web Characteristics

Characteristics
Flickr, Web 2.0 web site that allows users to upload and share photos
Flickr, Web 2.0 web site that allows users to upload and share photos

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser.[3] Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data.[13][3] These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[3][2] This stands in contrast to very old traditional websites, the sort which limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site's owner could modify. Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax,[3][2],openlaszlo, Flex or similar rich media. The sites may also have social-networking aspects.[13][3]

The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web"[14] and regards the Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.

The impossibility of excluding group-members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free-ride on the contribution of others.[15]

According to Best,[16] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Three further characteristics that Best did not mention about web 2.0: openness, freedom[17] and collective intelligence[18] by way of user participation – all should be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

Web

Definition
eBay, a typical Web 2.0 web site
eBay, a typical Web 2.0 web site

Web 2.0 has numerous definitions. Tim O'Reilly regards Web 2.0 as business embracing the web as a platform and using its strengths (global audiences, for example).[3] O'Reilly considers that Eric Schmidt's abridged slogan, don't fight the Internet, encompasses the essence of Web 2.0 — building applications and services around the unique features of the Internet, as opposed to building applications and expecting the Internet to suit as a platform (effectively "fighting the Internet").

In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, O'Reilly and John Battelle summarized what they saw as the themes of Web 2.0. They argued that the web had become a platform, with software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of the "Long Tail", and with data as a driving force. According to O'Reilly and Battelle, an architecture of participation where users can contribute website content creates network effects. Web 2.0 technologies tend to foster innovation in the assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers. (This could be seen as a kind of "open source" or possible "Agile" development process, consistent with an end to the traditional software adoption cycle, typified by the so-called "perpetual beta".)

Web 2.0 technology encourages lightweight business models enabled by syndication of content and of service and by ease of picking-up by early adopters.[7]

O'Reilly provided examples of companies or products that embody these principles in his description of his four levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0-ness:

* Level-3 applications, the most "Web 2.0"-oriented, only exist on the Internet, deriving their effectiveness from the inter-human connections and from the network effects that Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing in effectiveness in proportion as people make more use of them. O'Reilly gave as examples eBay, Craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, dodgeball, and AdSense.
* Level-2 applications can operate offline but gain advantages from going online. O'Reilly cited Flickr, which benefits from its shared photo-database and from its community-generated tag database.
* Level-1 applications operate offline but gain features online. O'Reilly pointed to Writely (now Google Docs & Spreadsheets) and iTunes (because of its music-store portion).
* Level-0 applications work as well offline as online. O'Reilly gave the examples of MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps (mapping-applications using contributions from users to advantage could rank as "level 2").

Non-web applications like email, instant-messaging clients, and the telephone fall outside the above hierarchy.[8]

In alluding to the version-numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phrase "Web 2.0" hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web. Technologies such as weblogs (blogs), wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds (and other forms of many-to-many publishing), social software, and web application programming interfaces (APIs) provide enhancements over read-only websites. Stephen Fry, who writes a column about technology in the British Guardian newspaper, describes Web 2.0 as:
“ …an idea in people's heads rather than a reality. It’s actually an idea that the reciprocity between the user and the provider is what's emphasised. In other words, genuine interactivity, if you like, simply because people can upload as well as download.[9] ”

The idea of "Web 2.0" can also relate to a transition of some websites from isolated information silos to interlinked computing platforms that function like locally-available software in the perception of the user. Web 2.0 also includes a social element where users generate and distribute content, often with freedom to share and re-use. This can result in a rise in the economic value of the web to businesses, as users can perform more activities online.[10]

Others have provided additional definitions of Web 2.0:
“ …the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective intelligence and added value for each participant by formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation.[11] ”
“ …all those Internet utilities and services sustained in a data base which can be modified by users whether in its content (adding, changing or deleting- information or associating metadates with the existing information), or how to display them, or in content and external aspect simultaneously[12]