[kazinator]

Web 2.0 did not originally imply social features. You may understand that now, but Web 2.0 originally meant the use of browser-side programming to create a more "desktop like" experience, together with CSS for snazzy layouts, whereas Web 1.0 is more plain HTML, with flow based on form filling and submission.

For example, if we compare two webmail applications -- Squirrelmail and RoundCube -- we might identify Squirrelmail as "Web 1.0" and RoundCube as "Web 2.0".

If the job meant taking static HTML to Web 2.0, that is clear: the pages were transformed or replaced with a fairly "rich" UI, skipping the stage where you have drop-down lists, checkboxes and submit buttons in a blocky layout.

(What is social features, anyway? "Log in with your Facebook account" or "comments powered by Disqus"? This fluff is simply not applicable in many kinds of professinoal websites! Do you want to see twitter comments underneath when accessing some medical record? "Share your medical history via Google+! Yes/Learn More/Not now" ...)

[smt88]

I apologize to passers-by for how pedantic this is about to get...

First, I don't care how it was coined. I care how I use it now. No modern speaker of language uses all words as they were first used. We use them as they're understood.

Second, while Web 2.0 was coined in obscurity to mean what you describe, it rose to popularity with the understanding of social features[1].

"Social features" simply mean that users can connect to one another and/or generate the value of the site. YouTube is an example of Web 2.0 because it wasn't a publishing platform for established companies as much as a video-sharing platform, where user-generated content was first-class content.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#Web_2.0

[kazinator]

Note that this sense of Web 2.0 does not replace the original meaning; it's a different nuance. The word "Web" in that nuance refers to "The World Wide Web" as such, and the "2.0" is just a common trope referring to a new improved something. Meet the new me. Me 2.0, if you will.

"Web 2.0", where "web" refers to "web technology", has not disappeared. Though it's something that the average user might not care about, it's not outdated in the same way in which, say, "sensibility" meaning "sensitivity" is outdated. The people who originally used "web 2.0" are still alive and still use it, for one thing.

Do you also think that this site is using "hacker" incorrectly, because the popular new meaning is "electronic criminal", and has been since at least 1980?

[smt88]

I wasn't suggesting that Web 2.0 has replaced the original meaning of Web. I said that Web 2.0 (meaning a website with user-generated content) has replaced the original, obscure meaning of Web 2.0 (meaning a website with dynamic content).

Your argument that I must disagree with "hacker=geek" because I disagree with "Web 2.0=dynamic" is based on a false premise. I don't care how non-technical journalists use either word. I care how my community (tech professionals) use those words: hacker=geek and Web2.0=social.

[kazinator]

Web 2.0 (technology) doesn't mean "dynamic content". In 1994 there was dynamic content with server-side script execution, which solidified into CGI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface :

"Common Gateway Interface (CGI) is a standard method used to generate dynamic content on Web pages and Web applications. " (emphasis mine)

"History ... In 1993, The NCSA team wrote the specification for calling command line executables on the www-talk mailing list."