Having lived through the dot-com-dot-bomb with great consternation and angst ("should I pitch VC and sell my soul?") I have found a few of those similar feelings recently regarding the hype about web 2.0. So finally someone answered my questions by providing a validator.
Being the inquiring soul that I am, the first site that I just HAD to validate was flickr. Here are the results for a web 2.0 validation of flickr.com
The score for https://www.flickr.com is 3 out of 18
- Is in public beta? No
- Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"? No
- Is Shadows-aware ? No
- Uses Cascading Style Sheets? Yes!
- Refers to mash-ups ? No
- Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes!
- Attempts to be XHTML Strict ? No
- Uses Google Maps API? No
- Appears to use AJAX ? No
- Appears to be built using Ruby on Rails ? No
- Refers to Flickr ? Yes!
- Refers to VCs ? No
- Mentions Cool Words ? No
- Has prototype.js ? No
- Refers to web2.0validator ? No
- Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web? No
- Uses microformats ? No
- Actually mentions Web 2.0 ? No
So there you have it folks (<grin>) flickr.com is NOT web 2.0 compliant. Now to test http://maps.google.com. 3 out of 20 with these being the three "yes" votes.
- Uses Cascading Style Sheets? Yes!
- Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"? Yes!
- Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes!
Tendenci.com scored 1 out of 20, so clearly I need to get with the team to add a few more 2.0 references. Hee hee.
For more angst on the difference between social software and web 2.0 please click that link.