Mehhhh 2.0. It's greatest weakness is its popularity, and, well, the fact that is DOES actually do some things that 1.0 didn't.
Like what? [And can you define what gets inclusion in web 1.0?] My understanding is that the only technological innovation involved is the occasional use of the XMLHttpRequest object, which dates back to 2000 or so. (Wikipedia says the Mozilla implementation was 2002, the IE one in 2000.) Nobody will give a solid example of what "Web 2.0" is - methinks because it is an invented term still seeking a definition. I hope O'Reilly is making plenty of cash from the coinage of the term. I can't find *one solitary thing* about Web 2.0 that isn't easily implementable using "plain old web technologies" -- what, then, describes the ascribed monumental change? Saying that 'web 2.0' is "all about the social" or something similar is not enough, it seems... nor is it enough to talk about the bare technologies being used. Neither of these two things have fundamentally changed, IMHO.... Maybe Web 2.0 is just supposed to describe some new flavor of creativeness among application authors? That's about all I can figure.... --e