HTML files are stored on a remote server and the public, by and large, have permission to read them. Files written in programming languages such as C++ need to be compiled, or turned into an executable operation by a compiler program, in order to run. Since HTML is only a markup language for that reason it is not compiled. Besides something else is needed to turn these plain text files into the colourful well-designed combination of styled text and images we have come to expect. This is the job of the browser, which comes with its own set of pros and cons. A major advantage is that since HTML is backwards compatible (retroactive), when a new version is released the file will still work, and newer features become available in newer browsers.

Other technologies have their own specific methods. PHP for example is a server-side language that makes the do all the work, and spits out the results for a user’s browser to interpret. This allows it to keep track of users who are logged in to the site, or display only specific content to specific users. Client-side scripting is characterized by things dynamically changing in the browser, like a digital clock, or Flash content. Languages like JavaScript put the burden of processing on the client; the code is sent to the user’s PC and processed by the browser. Web 2.0 contributors are not concerned with much of this technology, but it serves to illustrate an important point. The lumbering Internet is getting wider (with the addition of new technologies being implemented) rather than taller (with new extensions of HTML that can do new things).

The HTML standard has not been updated since 2000, the W3C choosing instead to work on XHTML, the result of combining traditional HTML with elements of XML. The XML element provides a stricter framework for working and gives a more uniform overall structure to XHTML. This makes it much easier for programs to correctly parse XHTML files. Browsers interpret all forms of HTML line by line, turning it into the webpage we see. Should a browser encounter any intended HTML element that it doesn’t understand it will interpret it as text, meaning it won’t crash if something doesn’t work. Each browser has been programmed to handle HTML, and even client-side languages like JavaScript in a slightly different way.

This means that content can look different depending on the browser it is viewed from, which is a major headache for web designers. Aligning backgrounds and other small tasks are made awkward by having to find a common ground to fit everything from Firefox to IE7, since web designers have no control over what is used to browse their content. There are ways to restrict access to users only using a certain browser but as alternatives to Internet Explorer (the most popular browser) rise through the ranks it becomes more important to adapt. These technical considerations require a great deal of specific knowledge regarding the inner workings of the various web technologies at play. Into this veritable minefield of possible errors and technical mistakes come Web 2.0 users, creating content without the traditional know-how.