August 11, 2005

Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, +, Each one exists now, so whats all the fuss?

While Shakespeare I am not, heres a few thoughts of my own on the whole "Web 2.0" debate thats going around at the moment.
---

Web 1.0 1994/5 = Static HTML Content, Browsers: Mosaic, Netscape

Web 2.0 1996/7/8 = Dynamic HTML Content, CSS, Browsers: IE 4.0+, Netscape 4.x

Web 2.5 1999/2000 = Dynamic XML, XHTML, CSS 2.x, client-side XSLT, Asynchronous Partial HTTP refresh/Dynamic Server-based, Browsers: IE 5.x, Netscape 6.0 (no client side XSLT at this point)

Web 3.0 2000/2001/2002/2003 = XForms, SVG, XUL, expanded client-side XSLT, RSS 0.9x, - Browsers: IE 6.0, Netscape 7.0, Mozilla - eventual client-side XSLT is added to Netscape in 7.1 via Mozilla's TransforMiiX

Web 3.1 = 2003/2004/2005 = 3.0 cntd., RDF(RSS 1.x), RSS 2.0, Atom, The Blogging and PubSub Generation - Browsers: IE 6.0, IE 7.0 beta and Netscape 8.0 (eventually), Mozilla, *Firefox* 1.0 emerges from Mozilla and eventually becomes the defacto browser for the Mozilla group ++ FeedReaders emerge and begin to take on the role of the browser + feedreaders + (in some cases) advanced XML messaging applications

Web 3.5 = 2005/2006/2007 = Web 3.1 cntd., XAML (XUL + SVG + Declaritive XML-based .NET API wiring framework) + RDF(or RPV-esque Semantic Web Markup of choice) + Mature XML Query languages (e.g. XQuery, SPARQL) + plus XSLT 2.0 processing and reprocessing of XML - First real sign of the The Semantic Web - Browsers: IE 7.0, Netscape 8.x, Mozilla's *Firefox* 1.5/2.0?, The feed reader begins to evolve into something really useful.

Web 4.0 = 2007/2008/2009 = Cross-breeding of Push/Pull Declarative-style application messaging framework, true and pure application interoperability via advanced XML messaging formats (COM/DCOM-XML if you will), true and easy access to the most relavent content with truly simplified searching mechanisms - The true and pure semantic web becomes a reality, Browsers, etc... - your guess is as good as mine... My personal belief is that the browser as we know it today will not exist anymore... Applications will be built dynamically via Atom and RSS/RDF data feeds that allow both ease of subscription to dynamic application frameworks and UI's and the data they process and present. These same data feeds will act in the capacity of an interapplication XML messaging frameworks to allow ease of subscrition controlled messaging between applications.
---

It is my very strong opinion that each one of the Web x.x entries above represent innovations that enabled a new level of web-based application development that did not exist before each level came into being as it simply was not possible to do with existing technologies what these new technolgies brought to the table. As such, new features bring new version numbers.

With that said I can easily think of individuals and/or groups of individuals who actively, to this very day, live in each one of these spaces. Some have never seen the need for anything but static text... the still-quite-popular Lynx browser should easily testify to that point.

While Web 2.0 technically started with Dynamic HTML in 1997 it has reemerged despite a core group of new technologies that far surpass the capability of the 2.0-based technologies - e.g. SVG, XForms, XUL, XAML. But then again Dynamic HTML was always seen as a lightweight weblication enhancement, not as a true weblication framework for the simple fact that too much DHTML overloaded the workhorses of the time and would push visitors away rather than attract them. Still, sites like DynamicDrive kept at it and developed a truly expansive and popular code-base that is suddenly finding a rebirth as the latest machines rip through this code like butta'.

Web 3.0 came with extensive client-side XML processing in XSLT and CSS as well as the introduction of SVG and XForms. It can easily be said that we are only just now beginning to realize the potential of these 4 year old technologies and yet there are others who are simply slipping over the top and attempting to fix the problems of the 3.0 bits when in fact we're not really sure if and what these problems may even be.

Web 3.x brings the Blogging/PubSub revolution and the focus on creating a simple but capable data feed format. Suddenly we are finding that people are beginning to dig deep and use all sorts of technologies, old and new, to really push this new medium to the extreme. Its still early in the 3.5 time frame and as such this group could easily morph into something else completey... So, if we base our current "Web Version" on this general idea it could easily be seen that some of us are living in 3.x world while other are simply enamored by the 2.0 world they never really had a chance to take advantage of in the first place.

And, for that matter, there's a small but important group of folks who have been working on the 4.0 stuff for quite some time.

So, with all of this combined we go from 1.0 to 4.0 and can expect to find a decent group of developers and/or users at each level who is happy, content, and in no hurry to move on while others couldnt stand still doped up on 50 milligrams of Ritalin and as such have simply got to move on to the latest and greatest. Whats cool about the "Rit'z" is that they have a tendency to figure out what works and doesnt work long before the others even arrive into the picture. They're the bleeding edgers and, as a card carrying member who also likes to dabble in the current state of blood-clotted affairs, I am of the belief that no matter what label we try and place on the current generation of web users, its never going to be totally accurate, and in some cases 7 years behind the times. Still, without marketing types there would be no money for us hacking types to play around with to create the latest and greatest thing... so, while it can be a real pain in the A$$, dealing with the current "versioned web" its something I think we simply have to put up with.

Although you might be surprised what a bottle of Tequila and a digital camera can do in "helping" the marketing folks realize that maybe "Web 3.0" is not such a bad label for the current state of affairs afterall... :D

Oh, BTW... do yourself a favor and at least pick up a bottle of Tres... Patron is too trendy, but it's at least drinkable... kind of. Cabo Wabo would obviously be even better but tends to be a little harder to gain access to ;) Don Julio ... well, anyway, just make sure that when at the liquor store, you don't have to bend down to grab the bottle... never a good thing to do. Just remember:

"Bending down = Hanging your head down in agonizing pain the next day"

Good words to live by and some friendly hints from someone with experience ;) (oh, Mezcal is always a good choice... something about that worm just makes them go bonkers -- no need to tell them the truth about the worm as for whatever reason it really does seem to make them think and act quite a bit crazier... all the better for a *FANTASTIC* shot to post (don't publish or you'll completely lose your ability to bribe... just let them know that its there... the morning after that is... They'll know what to do next ;)