No, he's not right. Alex Mack got it right:
Quote:
|
What is different is the use of the XML-HTTP-Request object, now natively available in every major browser, to transport information from the server and return that to the page without reload. That's a paradigm shift, and it is very interesting. That's the only thing though.
|
Which is the same thing I said.
Now, you can "redefine" the term to be whatever you want, but when the term was initially coined, all it was meant to refer to was communication with the server in the background (using the xmlhttprequest object as Alex mentioned), also known as AJAX.
That's all Web 2.0 is and to call it something different is okay, but it's not what the term means to all the people who were the first to use it and still use it today.
Likewise, because it doesn't mean what marketraise int thinks it means, it's also a misnomer to use terms like web 3.0 and web 4.0 -- they don't exist. To use them is just marketing hype and sophistry. They don't exist.
And we still have a long way to go before web 2.0 (i.e., AJAX and/or clientside server communication without page reloads) is fully implemented. How many web applications are out there that still use page reloads between user operations? 90% or more. Web 2.0 is just getting started. Web 3.0 and 4.0 don't exist. |
