You already know my thoughts on this issue. Real Time Web is too limiting. There's other major trends cooking. The web is not a version number, let's get away from that. So, that leaves a few other choices. - Robert Scoble

I prefer the "Web 2010" label. It does not impose too much and it's clearly definitional. - Ralf Rottmann

I agree with Scoble, version numbers aren't effective. However, I don't think that labeling the web with a year is any more effective (too much like sports video games). I think the term should be generic, like the "progressive web"...where companies and individuals who adopt the newest tech are simply utilizing "progressive web techniques". The web is constantly progressing, far too fast for labels. - Kevin Pruett

Kevin: That's exactly why I believe taking the year as a label is best. There likely will not be a single term (progressive, real-time, etc.) that describes it precisely. Looking back having a year attached can help as a reference point. - Ralf Rottmann

I like "Next Web". It never expires. - dthree

Ralf: I see, I wasn't really thinking about referencing a particular web technology (or set of technologies) at a specific moment in time. Labeling the web with that particular year might do the trick, although much of the web and its progression is built on top of each other....so it would be difficult to pinpoint the technologies three years down the road, for example. But it definitely beats Web 3.0, that's for sure - Kevin Pruett

Expiration is exactly what we need! Otherwise, everyone will just adopt the generic name and claim to be up to date, progressive, whatever, but with no real understanding of what it means, much less if they are actually accomplishing it! At least with a year attached, everyone will know when you've gotten old and grey in your technology. - B Bagby

Personally I like the term Next Web to describe what new web applications that are continually coming; it will always be relevant to what is the latest. When talking about what will be mainstream next year - 2010 Web is what I would use. Currently the Next Web and 2010 web describe the same thing for the most part but by the time 2010 hits - 2010 web will not sound as cool. - Robert Freeze

B Bagby: Definitely a lot of truth in that statement. I tend to use generic terms to try and avoid the gimmicky narratives of many slow-adopting companies. Ultimately, its the consumers that decide just how current their offerings really are. - Kevin Pruett

I'm curious to find out what people think are the defining characteristics of the Web right now. I see a lot of vagueness here, is this a reflection of the fact that the Web is difficult to pin down and gaining in complexity all the time? Or is there something else behind this resistance? To me naming something is an act of ownership, that we can't name the Web means that we can't own it and that's precisely what I like about it. That was the notion I was exploring in my blog post. On another note, has the font on the Building43.com FF feed been reduced in size or is it my monitor? - Andrew Eglinton

Andrew: weird, something happened and it got smaller on my monitor too. I've reported that as a bug. - Robert Scoble

Does Web 2010 imply we'll have Web 2011? Reminds me a lot of Windows 95 which was installed on desktops for a hellluva lot longer than 1 year (unfortunately.) - Clay Newton

@Robert - thanks, I was just about to recalibrate my eyesight :) - Andrew Eglinton

Clay: the web forces you to upgrade. Desktop OS's don't. - Robert Scoble

I call it Google Wave! But seriously, I hate the year one (like Clay said, there isn't a new one every year). 3.0 is organized, but it isn't very descriptive; however, it doesn't really need to be when people understand it. But B Bagby has a good point: some will just say it as though it is progressive when in fact they are at an outdated stage. Real-time web is nice and descriptive, but it doesn't alleviate this concern. I'd say 3.0 makes the most sense (2010 will sound irrelevant in 2011 and sounds strange today) because it is concise. - Californian

i prefer the term toothpick bird over these terms. why? i think some may be overthinking this classification. anything can be said against any of the terms. for instance, next web is a vague funneling to everything that follows to the future. realtime web implies an aspect. 2010 web implies a dated year that can become limiting shortly. web 3.0 may be too predictable & logical for some that they want another term to break outside the current thinking of web 2.0. sometimes it's easier to name in hindsight. - sɹǝɥʇɐǝɟʞɔɐןq

I second 'toothpick bird'! [Note: blog post amended to include the toothpick bird!] - Andrew Eglinton

toothpick bird is funny! Just after I saw a fail whale on Twitter, too. I think you're onto something! - Robert Scoble

You all probably knew this but I had no idea that a Toothpick Bird was a 'fifties cocktail essential' and look the 2020 site are way ahead of us, they already knew about the Toothpick bird era of the Web 11 years ago!! http://www.2020site.org/toothpi... and does that owl belong to Shel Israel?? - Andrew Eglinton

the net - Jamie

I just like "the web" :-) - Brandon Mendelson

++ Jamie, Brandon...Exactly, no need to complicate with meaningless labels - Kevin Pruett

I was proposing "Web.next" the other day. As in "whatever the current web, we can make Web.next better". No numbers, no years, no structural or technical definition... I kind of liked this idea,..., since it were mine... - Zackatoustra