Matthew Somerville wrote: > "new technologies"? Blogs (including online diaries) that you can > leave comments on have been around since 1998; RSS 1999. Wikipedia > launched in 2001. XMLHTTP was invented by Microsoft for Outlook Web > Access 2000. eBay launched its API in November 2000, Amazon launched > their web services in 2002, and I remember "mash-ups" being created > back then - e.g. Amazon Light. So this second (perhaps more, who > knows, my memory's not great either :) ) wave, or whatever you want > to call it, isn't exactly new technology, it's just > http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/web_20.html
Yes, "Web 2.0" is just a cheesey marketing phrase at the end of the day. And as much as I hate it, I do think it does help to mark a milestone in the way the web is being used now, how it has changed, and the direction it's heading. True, none of these's technologies are new. They did not appear on the same morning "Web 2.0" was dreamt up. But I think they have definately become more main stream in recent times, and understood by a wider audience of non-techies. > > Or you find that (not with all sites by any means, but a fair few) > your back button stops working, or it just plain doesn't work... > http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/ajax.html > Use of AJAX should be like any other - if it's not supported by the users browser it should fall back to a supported technology, and if it breaks things, then it should not be used. >> Examples, digg.com, > > So why that, and not slashdot? Slashdot has user submitted stories, > sophisticated comments, and so on. It even has rounded corners! Sorry, I just like digg. I think it's because of their heavy use of AJAX ;) Phil - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
