Re: Naming Clash: The W3C Web 3.0 Stack and "Web3"

Fwiw the TAG don’t systematically monitor this email list and haven’t for
years (unless that changed recently). Github is the way to their attention.

In passing…

W3C has never really used “Web 3.0” (or 2.0) for its work. The whole reason
“2.0” resonated rhetorically 20 years ago was because we all know you
couldn’t really version the web like that. And the only reason people tried
to claim “web 3.0” was the success of Tim O’Reilly’s original account of a
cluster of trends he labelled “2.0”. It was more like an era - the era of
“the dot com crash hasn’t killed this idea”. Given the attention it got, of
course there was going to be an unseemly scramble to number, name and
describe what came next. But it was never particularly serious. We should
just stop acting like “web 3.0” means anything very specific or technical.
The O’Reilly “web 2.0” was a good (because parodoxical) name for the
“recovery from the dotcom crash” moment, not a spec. And “RDF as the third
version of the web” was always laughable; it is one tool amongst many, and
we all knew it.

Dan

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 21:31, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 20:59 Travis Vachon, <travis.vachon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> it would be extremely disappointing to see the TAG lump the myriad
>> innovative and useful innovations that Robin lays out in with the various
>> marketing scams that have taken advantage of the success of these tools by
>> calling themselves "web3" projects.
>>
>
> +1, my sentiments exactly
>
>>