Did you perchance read the link I supplied before, in which I outlined what I thought the difference between 1.0 and 2.0 was? Mind you, it was a short thought piece, but if it really sucked so badly that you can't tell what I think the difference is and/or if you disagree with my assessment, let me know and I'll consider revising it. Full source: http://redheadedstepchild.org/destruct/?page=001753 Cliff's notes: creative search and navigation capability -Alexis On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 elw@stderr.org wrote: ::Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:59:42 -0600 (CST) ::From: elw@stderr.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org, subbies@redheadedstepchild.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] Web 2.0 - "the machine is us?" :: :: :: ::> 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 ::