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

I think Melvin's original point was, that the term Web 3.0 is being used
though

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 21:47 Dan Brickley, <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>>