3 ms·
I would have preferred something more like Web3.0 because HTML5 is one of the technologies being included in the broad term "HTML5". It's bound to lead to confu
by talmand 15y ago
I would have preferred something more like Web3.0 because HTML5 is one of the technologies being included in the broad term "HTML5". It's bound to lead to confusion and in many cases already has.
For example, you could have a Javscript coder always having to explain that he uses "HTML5" technologies but is not well-versed in actual HTML5 markup, which may not be required. I've seen numerous job listings where the person writing the job description is obviously absolutely confused over what they need.
- lukeschlather 15y agoWhen we talk about Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 we tend to be talking more about paradigms than any concrete technology. Web 2.0 is really about social web apps. The "HTML5" technologies are really about facilitating that paradigm, so I don't think talking about Web 3.0 really makes sense. Web 3.0 would be appropriate if we started to see the main activity on the Internet change to something new.
- talmand 15y agoMy memories of "Web2.0" began with the heavy use of AJAX and the design decisions that went with it. Such as creating websites that behaved as applications. I'm not saying that Web3.0 is an appropriate term. I just would have preferred that a more general term was used to describe all the technologies as a whole. Referring to all of them by the name of one of them is a mistake. Especially since it seems that some are pushing the notion that HTML shouldn't have a version number to begin with.