This is my vision, obviously not everyone thinks the same about it. I just realized almost everyone uses the name to describe rich web interfaces, so since everybody uses that definition, maybe thats really what it is (or has become)

I did a google, and I found a pretty interesting post on the subject on oreillynet.com

Cheers!

You should see Web 2.0 as the ultimate seperation of function, content and design.

The only Web 2.0 aspect of the whole AJAX hype is its original meaning. The fact that it uses an XML service to do stuff in the browser. But in a lot of cases this XML still contains very site-specific (html-)markup.

The main idea is that standards for exchanging information are defined and it no really has to live in the browser. A browser can put that information in a certain context (by wrapping it in HTML content) and give it some style (CSS for example)

Flex would be able to access the same API and display the information in its on way. In fact; any application should be able to do that.

My vision of Web 2.0 is that for example there is a standard defined for supermarkets and I can consume services that allow me to bring me my food at the door; or a pizza-delivery webserice!

Imagine the web as a non-normalized database; only a human can really tell what the content is. (a relatively very simple AI that puts some context in the web is a searchengine). Web 2.0 should basically allow computers or applications what the information you are accessing exactly is.
Imagine if every club published a feed that would allow me to check out whats happining in the weekend; then soon there would another service that grabs all those feeds and puts it in a bigger context. I could easily make an application that consumes that information and displays it in a nice interface (yet, put it in a new context)

So whats Web 2.0 for me? Basically the vision of the Semantic Web. Funny thing is, it only became so popular when somebody put the label ‘Web 2.0’ on it. That might be the root of the overhyping.

I’m pretty sure we have reached the state of ‘Web 2.0’ in 10 years or so, but it will probably have a different name again. The current name might not be suitable anymore because of the global confusement about the subject thats right now going on ;)

To me its the web developers paradise. To my personal experience RSS, trackbacks and all the other stuff thats happening right now has made the web a lot more enjoyable. But I guess the point where that stuff really is mainstream is when the acronyms are gone, and consumers don’t see it anymore; they will use it without knowing about whats below the surface.

The W3c has probably set this fire, but right now it seems as its so slow to keep up. (it seems like a very bureaucratic orginisation right now). Because of this there are a lot of standards in the wild and people are reinventing wheels or missing the point (my vision about Atom)

I’m not the kind of guy thats pushing people on using XHTML 1.0 strict. I use it myself, but thats because i find it to be easier to develop in. The best reason for pushing on standards on the web is interopability. If a HTML document is valid XSLT, it means other people can parse it using an XML parser or transform it with XSLT. I don’t think its needed to use XHTML 1.0; because I think its more of an endpoint to an application than a service which has to be interpreted by another application (it is for browsers, but I think they they do a very decent job).

However, a good example of using standards is a must is RSS. If somebody would want to publish a sitefeed of latest posts in a self-defined document, well.. that would just be stupid.