Talk:Ajax (programming)/Archive 1

message: * Also the link "AJAX' Achilles Heel maps.google.com with Javascript disabled" should also be removed. The page does not have a lot of information.
I disagree.  Read Garrett's original article, and search for the phrase "Javascript turned off".  Specifically at the end of the question "Can Ajax applications be made to work for users who have JavaScript turned off?"  He answers maybe, but the "AJAX' Achilles Heel" article refutes this: the answer is actually no.
** With all due respect, that's crap, for two reasons.  First, the "Achilles Heel" article proves that Google Maps specifically doesn't work with Javascript turned off, not that ALL Ajax apps won't work.  Second, Garrett specifically does not ask whether Ajax itself works when Javascript is turned off, but rather asks whether Ajax apps can be made to work without Javascript; there's a difference.  It's not hard to design a web app that includes Ajax but also degrades gracefully -- that seems more to be the spirit of his question, and it's a legitimate perspective.  And to return to the primary point, I agree that the "Achilles Heel" link doesn't seem to have a lot going for it. Jason 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Doesn't this example just describe using javascript to re-order a table? There's nothing asynchronous about this example, there's no XML being used. At best this example is really only an example of Javascript. Short of deleting it, maybe it could be re-written to show how client side javascript functionality (as described) could be extended using AJAX to actually change the content being displayed in the table, rather than just reordering the table.
--Sleepyhead81 10:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete Example? 

message: In original Garret's article he refers to the term as Ajax, not AJAX. Shouldn't we rewrite the title then?
* My vote is for "Ajax". My guess is that if we persist in calling it "AJAX" people will notice and then this groundbreaking new technology will be pronounced Ay-Jay-Ay-Eks, and that would suck. Eric B. and Rakim 22:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AJAX or Ajax?

message: The link to http://htmatters.net/htm/1/2005/06/AJAX-Achilles-Heel.cfm should be linked to that specific blog post not the entire blog which user 
User:Jemptymethod is trying to do. He is the author of that blog. A link should be relevant to the article. That blog is not. But the blog entry is at least somewhat relevant (can be discussed).
--Sleepyhead81 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to specific blog post - not entire blog 

message: Is it considered OK to link to the images from Jesse James Garrett's Adaptive Path article directly, without crediting them?  It's the worst of all worlds -- using someone else's bandwidth, and doing so in a way that makes it appear to casual users that the images are part-and-parcel of Wikipedia.  (Specifically, I'm referencing the two linked images in the "Compared to traditional web applications" section.)  I'm going to provide citations on both the links, but I still think that providing external links solely to images that are part of a more definitive article is something that deserves thinking about. Jason 11:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to external content on Wikipedia is annotated with the external link graphic like so:  There's no ambiguity that implies that the linked content is part of Wikipedia, and the bandwidth is not an issue. If the link target wanted to prevent the bandwidth usage, they would simply reject any requests with Wikipedia as a referer (the way bugzilla.mozilla.org refuses Slashdot-refered requests). -Harmil 10:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking to external images without sourcing them

message: The criticism here is controversial at best. "XMLHTTP" was not very common terminology, if used at all to mean a style of programming. In any event, Ajax encompasses more than XMLHttpRequest based calls. This section should at least be balanced by the benefits of the "Ajax" term - ie formation of a community, bigger push for rich browser features, a slew of new. publicly available, examples. - Sleepnomore 21:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This section basically amounts to: Some people don't like the name, and some people don't think it should be characterized as "new." Neither of these points seems significant enough to include in Wikipedia. The section on accessibility should be moved up into Pros and Cons and this section should be eliminated.
Other topics exist that carry a criticism section. I know that you are new to Wikipedia and you are not used to doing this. I also know that you are a personal friend of Jesse James Garrett. The problem is that you cannot simply remove cricism from the public eye and public documentation because you don't like it. Your dubious claim is invalid because you don't dispute the fact that the criticism claimed on the AJAX article doesn't exist. It would be impossible to prove since there are many citations of such criticism to point to. Please come back with valid claims before marking an item as dubious or disputed. - Sleepnomore 21:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
*I think the Criticism section should be removed altogether, as it is not entirely relevant to Jesse James Garrett as a person. You don't like the word, fine... but so what? Once the industry picked it up your dislikes become moot. btw the links you've added are almost entirely prejudicial remarks about not liking the word. The whole thing is just silly. You've lost, but somehow you find solice in having a Criticism section with links to posts (mostly, the criticism is in posts, not in the articles themselves) ranting about how they hate the word? Please... ask someone close to you to shake you.
** This article is not completely about Jesse James Garrett (although he does come slightly into play since he coined the term). This criticism needs to remain as it does exist.  This argument has become rediculous. There is no factual basis by which you continue your vandalism and terrorism of an otherwise peaceful topic. - Sleepnomore 21:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
:::It should be noted that a) Sleepnomore should avoid making this personal b) the anon editor should sign his/her comments (consider creating an account). c) The anon editor is being abusive, and the removal of criticism, given that the criticism is factual, is not reasonable. Wikipedia works best when you expand its content rather than trying to remove what you disagree with. Do research. Edit content to add in the fruit of your research. Problem solved. -Harmil 10:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I think the text below should be removed from the article. I don't think it's relevant comparison. Ajax should be compared to normal web pages not other approaces to building software. What do you think?
"Ajax is not a new approach to building software. From a higher perspective the presentation layer is like a form and a programming layer behind handling the events, commonly known in programming terms as MVC. This kind of programming is very well known in older programming environments like Smalltalk, Delphi, MFC, Visual Basic, Oracle ADF, and Windows Forms, just to name a few. Applications using this model of programming have been around for years: Microsoft Outlook Web Access using WebDAV and web-based ERP systems such as Costpoint Smart Business Applications  and P2plus , which uses web services directly from the browser. However, because there are no standards available for the communication model behind previous implementations, all use proprietary extensions." - (unsigned by User:Sleepyhead81 )
* I do agree that this seems a bit out of scope. There can be criticism based on the existence of the exact technology the term "Ajax" encompasses without needing to reach back to other programming models and languages. I think the first sentence, however, needs to remain.  Perhaps the criticism section needs to be rewritten?  I would be glad to do it, but considering the large debate already, I'm sure my edits would cause another revert war.  Anyone else care to take a stab at it? - Sleepnomore 21:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
** Isn't that sentance already covered in beginning of that section: "..for previously used techniques". I vote for a complete removal of the text above in my first comment. The critiscm section do need to be updated. Go ahead but just make sure it's kept neutral. I'll help. --Sleepyhead 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove text from critisicm 

message: Hello, i want to add Gollum to the example applications. Gollum is a free Wikipedia Browser for the fast and eyefriendly browsing throw the free encyclopedia "Wikipedia". 212.114.250.36 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best that you create an good-quality Gollum (browser) article first.  But remember, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your site or product. -- Perfecto  19:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gollum a Ajax application 

message: Let's discuss before removing this.  I'm open to why it should be removed, but I also think there are valid reasons for keeping it, and refutations of arguments I've seen so far for removing it.  While discussion is ongoing I can also make the article more pertinent.  Jemptymethod 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of the content being added to the article, but I see no reason to have a link to a an external site that has all of one paragraph to add on the topic. Robbyslaughter 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It's a poor resource that adds nothing to the article. Anything you think is worthwhile can be very easily ported over. Rufous 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There was no further discussion here for about a week, and yet the link was removed yet again.  I've since restored the link, and welcome discussion as to whether the enhancements to the Ajax Achilles Heel article make this a sufficiently valuable resource.  My position ahead of time is that they do indeed, in particular for people who respond to visual input more so than textual. Jemptymethod 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say this 'article' is not adding anything that the Wikipedia article doesn't already cover. We have a section on JavaScript being a requirement. Of course it is, XMLHttpRequest is a JavaScript object. 'Exposing' an AJAX application as requiring JavaScript is hardly a revelation. Rufous 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I see a consensus forming or at least nobody but me seems to be speaking in favor of retaining this link.  However I would point out the following point #4 from Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked_to ("On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.") as an argument for keeping it. Jemptymethod 03:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That isn't a Jakob Nielsen article.  It's a poor parody of a frames article that he wrote, with a few terms switched.  A lot of the criticisms of frames simply don't apply to Ajax, it's naive to take it as meaningful criticism.  I'm removing the link.  Feel free to link to *worthwhile* criticisms of Ajax, but blindly linking to anything negative makes it look like you have an axe to grind.
--Bogtha 12:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajax' Achilles Heel Link 

message: As far as I can see, this section appeared as the result of an anonymous edit on 8 December 2005.  After reading the article several times, this section strikes me as very poorly integrated with the rest of the article.  It exhibits at least the following problems:
* The section title is borderline nonsensical: to what do these two adjectives apply?
* What are the "couple of frameworks" in the opening sentence?  As far as I can see, only one is mentioned.
* This section introduces yet another "pro and con" list into the article.  Pro and con lists are considered harmful.
* The entries in that list are mostly nonsensical sentence fragments.  e.g., "No AJAX and JavaScript prerequisites of programming skills"—in fact, this one isn't even a fragment.  It just doesn't make sense at all.
In my opinion, this section adds close to nothing to the article and should be removed entirely.  Would the original author care to argue in support of keeping it?  If anyone else wants to argue in support, would you care to re-write it?  I propose that it is deleted entirely. PaulHoadley 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Server-Independent and Server-Centric" section 

message: A couple of people have suggested BXML be merged here.  Can you please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BXML.  Thanks! -- Perfecto 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please put your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BXML.  Vote whether Backbase stays, goes here or goes away.  Thanks. -- Perfecto 04:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BXML merge 

message: If I remember correctly, we already had a section like this before and it was deleted outright as it attracted link spam. Now it's just been added back, by User:Supernerd, who by all accounts is a link spam enthusiast, offering nothing more to Wikipedia than links to some framework called Zoop in whatever article they might fit. I suggest it be deleted again (and it would be nice if someone could track down all of this user's edits and make sure they belong). Rufous 03:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean the whole section has to be removed? It was very useful. Maybe add a category or something?--Nkour 18:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A category might be useful. That means that every framework must have a Wikipedia article though. And that is a good way to keep only the most relevant and popular frameworks listed. --Sleepyhead 18:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Backbase got deleted not long ago, I suspect only a few of the frameworks have better credentials than it. --Artw 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libraries and Frameworks section 

message: How do I pronouce Ajax? I-axe or Ay-Jacks? --ComputerJoe 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pronounced "Ay-Jacks". --Gary King 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, thats "A-Jacks" rather than "I-Jacks" (as the scottish would pronounce the above) Thelem 18:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouncing 

message: I've agreed and disagreed with rather interesting number of participants here. However, I have too many things related to this article to put in a talk page (I did try, as can be seen above). Whether you find me as "suspicious" or not, please have a look at my user sub-page I have set up, related to Ajax.
It has a lot of stuff in it and you might find that you agree with me or not and help me understand why am I wrong. I'd appreciate any sincere input. If you have any response, please do not make it here but here.
--Aleksandar Šušnjar 05:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros, Cons, What Ajax is (not)

message: If you look for AJAX on the web you will find people using two acronyms, "Asynchronous Javascript and XML" and "Advanced Javascript and XML."  A few editors to this page do not agree with the second acronym.  Should we exclude it despite its current use?  Is there a formal AJAX specification that defines this?  Some example sites that use the second acronym include:
*ITtoolbox
*Compuware
*Lockergnome
--Dirkbike 12:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Advanced Javascript and XML." != Ajax. See the original Ajax article. --Sleepyhead 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Um... I think the question is whether the new acronym is worth mentioning in the article.  By no means does the original Ajax article represent any authority in this matter. --68.61.72.130 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJAX acronym 

message: Is there actually any evidence that a significant number of AJAX applications are using SVG for their output? If not we should remove the reference to it from the intro. --Artw 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  agree. --Kirils 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG 

message: Hi All
Kirils just left the following message on my talk page.  Is he in charge around here? --Nigelj 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Greetings all - I've published a demo and tutorial for live-searching with AJAX using the Ruby on Rails framework and I think it would be helpful for readers to see and learn how easily AJAX can be implemented with Rails.  I noticed the discussion on frameworks above; that mention of them invites link spamming and perhaps I'd be labeled as one.  Fair enough.  So I'm asking - what does it take to keep an external link at the bottom of the article?  Specifically, how would the demo and tutorial I've written need to change?  
83.77.179.43 19:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it take to keep an external link below the article? 

message: The current version of the history is absolutely horrible, and seems to primarily focus on finding things that are like remote scripting in order to disprove the origins of current techniques in MS remote scripting, presumably due to some kind of anti microsoft bias. This seriously needs fixing. The is no AJAX code in use today whatsoever that has its origins in hacks based on the layer tag, primalily because teh entire code base of NS4 was standards non-compliant and had to be scraped - it's an unleated dead end of no use to anyone interested in AJAX. --67.183.217.212 05:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I'm removing the paragraph about accessibility from the cons section.  It was in the usability subsection, although it's not a usability issue.  Two short sentences aren't enough to create a subsection of its own, and accessibility has a whole section of its own directly underneath, so any subsection would be redundant anyway.  If you disagree, let's talk about it here.  --Bogtha 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility 

message: Currently this section contains the sentences:
"The major advantage of the declarative approach is that non-programmers are allowed to define user interfaces with HTML-like markup language. The disadvantage is that pages are becoming harder and more obscure to design and maintain, as it becomes more sophisticated."
At best the wording of the second sentence is highly confusing. I propose changing it to read:
"...The disadvantage is that pages are becoming harder to design and maintain as the markup language becomes more sophisticated."
I don't have any experience with this particular part of Ajax, so I'm requesting comments on this change.
--Jarsyl 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's confusing, but I think the entire section should be removed.  As far as I can tell, it's just a reference to Backbase's BXML that is vaguely-worded to avoid being classed as spam.  In my opinion, it's misleading as it implies that the Backbase approach is the "common approach", but that is not even close to being true.  It should either be completely rewritten or removed entirely - as it stands, even with your proposed change, I don't think it adds anything but confusion to the article. --Bogtha 19:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section entirely as per Bogothas suggestion. if theres an AJAX specific framework that uses this technique let's mention it directly. --Artw 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup Language vs Programming 

message: I think we should at the very least provide a link (and a new page) to Ajax and Rails discussing Rail's implementation of Ajax.  Considering it's one of the attractions of Rails, it shouldn't be ignored. Weters 19:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO thats for a Rails article, not an Ajax article. --Artw 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I definitely agree with Artw. For one, Rails uses a few libraries for its Ajax implementation. --Booch 19:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ajax on Rails

message: This is just an idea, I have no special interest in that, I have not written any Ajax framework, what I propose is another page dedicated to Ajax libraries, wrapper, framework, and so one... This will include Sajax, and any open source similar program. It is not normal to link a library, and even create a page for it (I am speaking of Sajax) and refuse other ones. Booles 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having edited this article for months, a separate page for this is probably not a good idea. We have had numerous attempts to set up a Frameworks section as part of the external links, and they have quickly degenerated into link farms and had to be deleted outright. The problem is, there are dozens of frameworks being developed, and it becomes very difficult for anyone to differentiate which ones are actually notable, which ones are redundant, and which ones are actually being used. Rufous 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was just an idea :) Booles 19:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An external link to a page about frameworks may be valuable providing there are revieved, compared, etc... Alcalazar 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new page 

message: I am never short of ideas :) On another page of the wiki, I would have created it directly, but this page is very hot! I prefer to take advices before to change anything. I propose to add a section beside tutorials, for documents that are more a reference than a tutorial. It may be entitled "Online books" or "Reference manuals". Tutorials are intended for teaching, and manuals to be consulted when we need an answer to a question. The links to Apple and IBM should enter this new category, even if the former is very short.   Booles 19:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: since Ajax is a collection of technologies you can find reference for those technologies in the respective articles. For xmlhttprequest reference go to the xmlhttprequest article. I think the sections for tutorials and articles are very suited. --Sleepyhead 08:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found a book section on PHP and Python pages. Alcalazar 12:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just read the PHP page, it needs really more link deletion than this one! Booles 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a book section 

message: Several links to a website on the same page is spam. 
A link to a website on several pages at Wikipedia is also spam. I suspect that the one that spams the wiki with lots of links anywhere to its webpage that is not even really useful, is also the one that removes links to other websites (and I have good reasons). I wonder also why a big company with billions dollars of cash needs for spamming this wiki. This is atonishing! Booles 12:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About spam 

message: A link to a such article comes back from time to time. Without JavaScript, this is just XMLHttpRequest and maybe it has to be linked from the XMLHttpRequest page, but not from the Ajax page that is here to explain what is Ajax: XMLHttpRequest + JavaScript.
In my mind they have put Ajax in the title just to link from the Ajax page. For me it is a joke.
And so is "example of Ajax website". On the page about Computer, one can link to a page because this page run on a computer. It is a joke, isn't? On the page about HTML, one can link to a page because it is written in HTML. It is a joke, isn't?  Linking to a page because it is built using Ajax is a joke also.
Alcalazar 11:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ajax without JavaScript