Rashid Muhammad:
Hi Robert. I hate the term firstly because it is purely marketing fluff with no real substance and two I feel like it displays ignorance of the nature of the web and its evolution from a social and technological standpoint. I wrote about the social part a while back.
From a technical perspective, I would argue that if we're going to put version numbers on the Web, then there are many other developments that would mark 2.0 better than now. The implementation of forms processing which made the web interactive, the introduction of Javascript and the DOM (DHTML) making the client more active in rendering the page and delivering "thick client" functionality just to name a couple. SOAP / XMLRPC is a big leap forward insofar as making A Good Thing easy to execute, but it and the things lumped into the Web 2.0 basket are hardly the first major revision of web technology.
So I guess if I were to sum up my problem with the term Web 2.0, it's that the version number is waaaay too low technically and probably too high socially where - if anything - the Web is just getting out of beta.
Jodie Davis:
Hi Robert! Yup, it continues to be an interesting journey.
We have something in common: electrical engineering in Boston only I was at Northeastern. Great city. But too cold right now. (Heard about the nor-easter of '78? I was stuck there and could have camped out on Mass Ave.) Looking forward to meeting you Friday night. This is a fantastic opportunity to immere ourselves this brave new world with like-minded souls!
