<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>dmiessler.com | grep understanding - Latest Comments in The Difference Between Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0</title><link>http://danielrm26.disqus.com/</link><description>dmiessler.com/about/</description><atom:link href="https://danielrm26.disqus.com/the_difference_between_web_10_20_and_30/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:26:23 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Difference Between Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0</title><link>http://dmiessler.com/blog/the-difference-between-web-10-20-and-30#comment-4354824</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Why can't crypto as an underlying design element be part of the idea?  We're ok with other design elements being a core piece of what makes it Web 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 whatever. How about, instead of just Web 3.0 is the semantic web where data is labeled and sexy, we make it Web 3.0 is the semantic web where data is labeled and sexy and secure?  We're just labeling a method of working with data.  There's no reason at all security can't be considered an underlying design element of the idea.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dave</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:26:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Difference Between Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0</title><link>http://dmiessler.com/blog/the-difference-between-web-10-20-and-30#comment-4354823</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Mind, dude, web 3.0 isn't a piece of software anyone is pushing out, it's an abstract idea.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dak</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:22:30 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>