do not say AJAX
ivan
People is wondering for something that programmers have used for many years.
Javascript + Xml and asynchronous requests is not new. People started to
speak about AJAX a lot after XmlHttpRequest was introduced, so AJAX cant'be
Javasript+xml+xmlhttprequest.
But if you still think so, you can't anyway call this AJAX. What is new with
xmlhttprequest is the possibility to perform a synchronous request! (but
incredibly AJAX stay for Asynchrous+JavaScript+XML).
So AJAX is really a bad word, don't use it here, we are programmers not end
users to wonder with mythological words.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> AJAX is a stupid and confusing word. People is wondering for
> something that programmers have used for many years.
True.
> Javascript + Xml and asynchronous requests is not new.
I beg your pardon?
> People started to speak about AJAX a lot after XmlHttpRequest was
> introduced,
True.
> so AJAX cant'be Javasript+xml+xmlhttprequest.
I am afraid your logic escapes me.
> But if you still think so, you can't anyway call this AJAX. What is new
> with xmlhttprequest is the possibility to perform a synchronous request!
You probably meant "What is new with xmlhttprequest is the possibility to
perform an asynchronous request!". (Potentially) synchronous requests have
always been possible through AOM/DOM objects and through normal HTML forms.
> (but incredibly AJAX stay for Asynchrous+JavaScript+XML).
Because that is what is "new" about it.
> So AJAX is really a bad word, don't use it here, we are programmers not
> end users to wonder with mythological words.
I agree that it is a term often misused. However,
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX> exists;
AJAX is not a bad word per se.
PointedEars
cicap
> perform an asynchronous request!". (Potentially) synchronous requests
> have
> always been possible through AOM/DOM objects and through normal HTML
> forms.
>
No. synchronous request without refresh.
request.open("GET", url, false); //this a synchronous request with
xmlhttprequest.
Aaron Gray
AJAX in England is the name of an old scouring powder product.
AJAX is _A_syncronous _J_ava _A_nd _X_ML request.
I am afraid like web 2.0 the term is here to stay.
Aaron
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
>> You probably meant "What is new with xmlhttprequest is the possibility to
>> perform an asynchronous request!". (Potentially) synchronous requests
>> have always been possible through AOM/DOM objects and through normal HTML
>> forms.
>
> No.
Yes.
> synchronous request without refresh. request.open("GET", url,
> false); //this a synchronous request with xmlhttprequest.
So? new Image().src = url; is (potentially) a synchronous request,
(delays with extensive preloading show this) as is (potentially)
hiddenFrame.location = url;
PointedEars
ivan
"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <Point...@web.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1590129.8...@PointedEars.de...
> cicap wrote:
>
>>> You probably meant "What is new with xmlhttprequest is the possibility
>>> to
>>> perform an asynchronous request!". (Potentially) synchronous requests
>>> have always been possible through AOM/DOM objects and through normal
>>> HTML
>>> forms.
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes.
>
No, because It wasn't what I meant :)
>> synchronous request without refresh. request.open("GET", url,
>> false); //this a synchronous request with xmlhttprequest.
>
> So? new Image().src = url; is (potentially) a synchronous request,
> (delays with extensive preloading show this) as is (potentially)
> hiddenFrame.location = url;
>
Uhm yes, you are right.
Matt Silberstein
Am I the only one who said "AJAX, AJAX, AJAX" to himself. And then
checked around to make sure no ghostly can of scouring powder showed
up.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
VK
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> Am I the only one who said "AJAX, AJAX, AJAX" to himself.
Hah! I bet you did not look at the mirror at the same time! Cheater!
:-D
:-|
I think it's a bit of a zealous here for all this "don't say AJAX",
"AJAX is a wrong term" etc.
Any term is good as long as it commonly accepted. Who the hell wants to
type/say every time "I'm having problems with sending and retrieving
data over XMLHttpRequest and its equivalents"?
"My AJAX doesn't work!" - it's much better, is it? :-)
AJAX as a term is short, nice (Greek myth) and it has "J" in it. What a
hell more do you want? And who cares what does this abbreviation mean
(if anything)?
Does anyone see a lot of sense in ActiveX? Why not ActiveZ? And even if
X stays from eXchange then it doesn't reflect the nature of ActiveX.
But it is sound and easy to say - that's suffice.
You jast wait JSON will come (coming already). Lucky if 1 of 10 will
eventually know that it's JavaScript Object Notation. But it will not
stop anyone from using it.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Any term is good as long as it commonly accepted. [...]
I expected this from you. Why call things correctly
if there is a "so-called accepted" different term?
Because it prevents misunderstandings that can lead
to basic misconceptions.
PointedEars
Matt Kruse
> AJAX is a stupid and confusing word.
And yet, the coining of the term (in addition to google) helped push the
technology into use by a lot more people. So, having a term is a good thing.
Even the term "Javascript" is confusing and misleading, yet we use it.
Obviously, to use "Ajax" it doesn't need to be async, nor javascript, nor
xml. But in most cases, it probably is. So the name's not all that bad.
Perhaps an alternative definition of AJAX could be arrived at:
Asynchronous Javascript Albatross eXchange?
--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
VK
Matt Kruse wrote:
> Perhaps an alternative definition of AJAX could be arrived at:
> Asynchronous Javascript Albatross eXchange?
Or:
Active Javascript Autochthonous eXchange
if it helps anyone to sleep better tonight :-)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> ivan wrote:
>> AJAX is a stupid and confusing word.
>
> And yet, the coining of the term (in addition to google) helped push the
> technology into use by a lot more people. So, having a term is a good
> thing.
Not per se.
> Even the term "Javascript" is confusing and misleading, yet we use it.
Some, not all, of us use that.
PointedEars
John W. Kennedy
>> AJAX is a stupid and confusing word.
>
> AJAX in England is the name of an old scouring powder product.
US, too.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Aaron Gray wrote:
>>> AJAX is a stupid and confusing word.
>> AJAX in England is the name of an old scouring powder product.
>
> US, too.
As well as here in Germany and in a number of other countries
where Colgate-Palmolive sells it:
<URL:http://colgate-palmolive.com/app/Colgate/US/SiteMap.cvsp>
Also note that AJAX can make use of SOAP ;-)
(What the heck has this to do with programming?)
PointedEars
VK
"The Trojans were surprised by the big size of Ajax, but the match soon
got under way. Hector had won the right to hit first, which he did.
But it only bounced off Ajax's big, strong shield. When Ajax threw
his spear, it hit Hector's and also pierced it. The two got their
spears back and started to circle each other."
Ajax vs. Hector
The Iliad, Part II
Of course anyone has her own set of associations.
Matt Kruse
> Matt Kruse wrote:
>> Even the term "Javascript" is confusing and misleading, yet we use
>> it.
> Some, not all, of us use that.
Followups to comp.lang.ecmascript? :)
marc
eredivisie, they are at number nine! Hey, now even in computer science
newsgroups you torture me with the present state of my team, right stop
keep reminding me of this! Right! Do not mention the Amsterdam Football
Club Ajax!
;-P
thakadu
That would be:
_A_syncronous _J_avaSCRIPT _A_nd _X_ML request.
Pete Wason
I'm working on a website which used php, javascript, and css to do it's thing.
Browsers mentioned are Firefox 1.0.7 and IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.050301-1526.
Consider the following:
disc.php contains <script>var page = "<?=$_SERVER['PHP_SELF'];?>";</script> to
write a javascript var. This is followed by a <script type="text/javascript"
src="includes/leftmenu.js" /> declaration to load a bunch of functions, one of
which depends on the aforementioned var being defined. The page also uses <?php
include "includes/leftmenu.php"; ?> to add a group of css-styled divs which act
as a navigational menu, the styling and functionality of which depends on the
javascript.
This works completely without error in Firefox, but nothing displays at all in
IE! View Source shows that everything is there, but the page is completely
blank. If I comment out the external js declaration, IE will display everything
OK, but the menu navigation and css changes (based on javascript onmouseover,
etc.) obviously don't work.
What the heck is going on?
This is all based on a prototype I did for the client which used hidden content
divs paired with the nav menu divs via javascript, and there were no includes
or external references. The protoype worked perfectly in both browsers.
Pleh!
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> [...]
> I'm working on a website which used php, javascript, and css to do it's
> thing. Browsers mentioned are Firefox 1.0.7 and IE
> 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.050301-1526.
>
> Consider the following:
>
> disc.php contains <script>var page =
> "<?=$_SERVER['PHP_SELF'];?>";</script>
This does not generate Valid HTML and to be on the safe side,
it should read:
<script type="text/javascript">
var page = "<?php echo addslashes($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']); ?>";
</script>
You should disable short_open_tag in php.ini or through Apache's
php_value short_open_tag Off
directive (in .htaccess). Else you will probably run into problems
with XML declarations, for example.
> to write a javascript var. This is followed by a
> <script type="text/javascript" src="includes/leftmenu.js" />
> declaration
It is not a declaration, it is an element.
> This works completely without error in Firefox,
Probably because Firefox, as all Mozilla/5.0 based browsers, supports XHTML.
> but nothing displays at all in IE!
Probably because IE does not support XHTML to date, even though you use the
proper DOCTYPE declaration (try serving it as application/xhtml+xml to see
it is true[1]). Instead it does error-correction on XHTML markup.
`<tag />' is equivalent to `<tag>>' in HTML, not to `<tag></tag>' as
in XHTML.[2] IE probably (_incorrectly_) error-corrects it to `<tag>';
the `script' element is not closed, thus no code is included.
HTH
PointedEars
___________
[1] <URL:http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml>
[2] news:32386001....@PointedEars.de
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Matt Kruse wrote:
>>> Even the term "Javascript" is confusing and misleading, yet we use
>>> it.
>> Some, not all, of us use that.
>
> Followups to comp.lang.ecmascript? :)
I would support the renaming, but I doubt newbies are going to find it.
PointedEars
Randy Webb
And it would be an incorrect renaming.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Jasen Betts
that'd reduce the nomber of "how do I stop the user from closing this window"
requests...
Bye.
Jasen