Talk:Ajax (programming)/Archive 3

message: Per the request for this article, I'm posting here some wording changes I want to make. If I don't get any constructive feedback, I'll go live with them in a few days. --71.131.70.115 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "Ajax applications reduce the burden on the remote server by moving processing of the page being viewed to the client computer." --Chris 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is not entirely true. The processing of the display only is moved to client, not the whole page. Processing of data remain on the server (this is part of the page). Booles 09:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not need to compare AJAX with Java.  AJAX may works with Java (or other languages/environments). Booles 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about: "Developers have implemented various solutions to this problem. These solutions can involve using invisible IFRAMEs to invoke changes that do not populate the history used by a browser's back button. The IFRAME technique is regarded by some as outmoded. Although the World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C), a standards-setting body, has not formally deprecated IFRAME, it recommends the more general OBJECT instead." --Chris 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't like iframes too much. Booles 09:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The alternatives are (without consorting to more complex and proprietary alternatives) : IFRAME, IMG or the SCRIPT-tag. I do not see how OBJECT is a better solution in a real-world example. Besides, whether users on wikipedia like or dislike iframes is irrelevant. --Sleepyhead 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have fixed the URL. The cite template used was broken by an IP edit in March of this year. Spud Hai/watidone 01:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: XHTML (or HTML) and CSS, for marking up and styling information.
* concur Artw 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 2, first bullet

message: The iPhone, Apple, and Flickr examples feel like marketing.  Aren't there better places for examples than this?  If this is a good place, are these the best examples? Quadnine 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 3, sentence 2 and 3

message: The Web development community, first collaborating via the Usenet newsgroup "microsoft.public.scripting.remote" and later through blog aggregation, subsequently developed a range of techniques for remote scripting in order to enable consistent results across different browsers.
* concur Artw 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 8, first sentence

message: Ajax applications execute mainly on the user's machine, by manipulating the current page within the browser using document object model methods.
* semi-concur - It scans better, but the like the current text is factually dodgy. To be AJAX there has to an exchange of data betwene the page and the server that doesn't require a page reload, however theres no reason why it needs to execute "mainly" at either end. Artw 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "Ajax applications reduce the burden on the remote server by moving processing of the page being viewed to the client computer." --Chris 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is not entirely true. The processing of the display only is moved to client, not the whole page. Processing of data remain on the server (this is part of the page). Booles 09:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 1, sentence 1

message: Generally only small requests need to be sent to the server, and relatively short responses are sent back.
* concur Artw 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 1, sentence 3

message: This permits more responsive user interfaces due to the use of DHTML techniques.
* concur - could probably do with further decluncling though. Artw 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 1, sentence 4

message: While the Ajax platform is more restricted than the Java platform, current Ajax applications effectively fill part of the niche first served by Java applets: extending the browser with lightweight mini-applications.
* concur Artw 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not need to compare AJAX with Java.  AJAX may works with Java (or other languages/environments). Booles 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 2

message: The difference between returning to a previous state of the current, dynamically modified page versus going back to a previous static page might be a subtle one; but users generally expect that clicking the back button in web applications will move their browser to the last page it loaded, and in Ajax applications this might not be the case.
* concur Artw 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Usability", paragraph 1, sentences 2 and 3 (combined)

message: Developers have implemented various solutions to this problem, most of which revolve around creating or using invisible IFRAMEs to invoke changes that do not populate the history used by a browser's back button.aha... kollam..
* semi-concur - I'm not sure iframe based techniques for doing this are that common anymore. Artw 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "Developers have implemented various solutions to this problem. These solutions can involve using invisible IFRAMEs to invoke changes that do not populate the history used by a browser's back button. The IFRAME technique is regarded by some as outmoded. Although the World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C), a standards-setting body, has not formally deprecated IFRAME, it recommends the more general OBJECT instead." --Chris 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't like iframes too much. Booles 09:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The alternatives are (without consorting to more complex and proprietary alternatives) : IFRAME, IMG or the SCRIPT-tag. I do not see how OBJECT is a better solution in a real-world example. Besides, whether users on wikipedia like or dislike iframes is irrelevant. --Sleepyhead 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on "Usability", paragraph 1, sentence 4

message: The citation (#2) does not include a valid URL.
:I have fixed the URL. The cite template used was broken by an IP edit in March of this year. Spud Hai/watidone 01:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "History", paragraph 3, sentence 2 

message: Should there be something in disadvantages that discusses the difficulty of maintaing session keep alives/ timeouts with AJAX?
:I believe that Ajax is here to remove timeouts, but perhaps I am wrong... Seriously, I don't know! Booles 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so as session timeout is a general client/server issue and not specifically Ajax-related. Using Ajax will actually in many cases minimise the case of a session timeout as requests are sent more often to the server from the client. --Sleepyhead 10:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeouts session keep alive 

message: I have removed the so-called unofficial logo from the article as being out of place. Besides, what technology needs a "logo"?  --John Seward 08:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Booles 09:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: I've merged the article 'Ajax Desktops' in here as it seems unneccessary to keep them separate. I added the external link from that page into here, however I've noticed your note on additions so to carry over the information rather than make a statement as to whether it should be there or not. Cheers. Orchid Righteous 12:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this merge should have been implemented. Whether or not Ajax desktops are encyclopedic is another discussion, but for now I don't think they are at all relevant to an article about the technology itself. Please reconsider. Rufous 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh, No. It's basically a "sites that use AJAX" section, and as such I'm deleting it. Artw 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call. --Sleepyhead 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was obvious spam. Other topic: I wonder why you have added twice the article of J. J. Garrett. Booles 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Desktops 

message: I've passed this article as a good article - nice work! A couple of things, though:
* I had a little bit of trouble relating some of the info in the History section to the Ajax concept, particularly "Remote Scripting Frameworks such as ARSCIF[5] surfaced in 2003 not long before Microsoft introduced Callbacks in ASP.NET[6]." A couple more sentences in this section wouldn't go amiss.
* The pros and (especially) cons sections are missing references. I know there's not a lot of stuff to reference, but something like "This is possible because many browsers allow JavaScript to update the fragment identifier of the URL dynamically" would be easy enough to find a source for.
* It's a little weird to say that Ajax means "Asynchronous Javascript and XML" and then say that XML is optional. I'd probably prefer it if it was mentioned in the same list as XHTML, DOM and XMLHttpRequest; but I'm not overly bothered by it.
Apart from those, this is a really good article - a great introduction to Ajax. Nice work! --james(talk) 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it still be considered a good article if it has a banner saying "This article needs additional citations for verification"? --citral (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: Some mention needs to be made of Ajax used on mobile phones.  Microbrowser mentions ajax, for example.  http://ajax.phpmagazine.net/ajax_mobile/ Mathiastck 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ajax mobile seems notable to me, (admittely anything mobile seems more notable to me then the average user).  Still, I think such info would best belong here, rather then as it's own article.  Mathiastck 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I jumped the gun on mobile ajax, the mobile world was all abuzz about it, but it hadn't happened yet.  It has happened now, witht he Opera browser.
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008690.html
Mathiastck 06:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajax Mobile 

message: I feel it would be useful to give some links to specific implementation of AJAX.  Specifically  ATLAS which is Microsofts implementation of AJAX.  Any thoughts?
--12.10.219.36 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioend above, opera implemented AJAX in their mobile browser, with various widgets. Mathiastck 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations of AJAX 

message: Hi reviewers, when you get time please consider whether the following links would be useful if added
to External Links.  I may not add them because I maintain one of the sites.  I was one of the instructors
for the summer course at Univ of Penn and these pages were created for that course.  They consist of very simple Ajax code samples (server and client
side) and a few book reviews:
| Ajax code samples
| Ajax book reviews, and
they also link to the course Wiki which has other useful, related
information.
Harborsparrow 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The JavaScript widgets exaple looks very well, but this is JavaScript not Ajax, should be linked to the JavaScript page. The book is just an advertisement. Booles 12:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you'd take another look.  These are independent book reviews; I have nothing to do with their authors, and it does help to provide guidance given the vast number of books that have become available.  As for the code samples, the majority of the code has to do with managing the HTTP communications; the Javascript part is minimal and essential.  I do not agree that these go on a Javascript page.  Request that you take another look at the suggested links.Harborsparrow 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You've been spamming this link across several articles. Not a good way to convince us of the merits of the link, as it looks like plain spam right now. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible addition to External Links

message: An annoying trend that seems to have built a momentum of its own is the belief that Ajax is an acronym for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML.  It's not even a shorthand for that.  Those technologies are used in Ajax, but it is a misnomer to equate them to Ajax.  Jesse James Garrett himself has defined Ajax applications as meeting two criteria:
1) Uses an asynchronous interaction model
2) Utilizes native browser technologies
Ajax is a TERM, not an acronym or even a shorthand - it's more like a classification or categorization of a way of approaching web application implementations.  Someone please revise the text on the page to alleviate the confusion, and remove the reference to "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML".  It was disturbing to hear many presenters at the 2006 AjaxWorld conference making reference to this pseudo-acronym, as it made me question whether they really knew what they were talking about.
12.162.3.126 01:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that if "many presenters at the 2006 AjaxWorld conference [made] reference to this pseudo-acronym", then that, in itself gives it a notable, and public-domain existence.  Wikipedia does not 'make the facts', it reports them; the same goes for Jesse James, I expect, too. --Nigelj 19:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, since Jesse James Garrett is the one who coined the term and he, himself, has mentioned in his presentations that Ajax is not an acronym, it just seems like perpetuating an inaccuracy does not make it valid (or a fact), just because so many people make references to it.  Sounds like religion to me. -- 198.144.206.109 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. You say he has mentioned it is not an acronym, but it's his very own paper that says "The name is shorthand for 'Asynchronous JavaScript and XML'". That pretty much makes any claim to the contrary pretty bogus. And this form of "shorthand" does fit the word "acronym" pretty well. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I think this is splitting hairs. The A, J and X in "Ajax" refer to Asynchrony, JavaScript and XML. He didn't just pluck the word out of the air. I think the whole "not an acronym" problem stems from the fact that Garrett doesn't want the A to mean "and". In his original paper he used a plus. To argue over this is a waste of time. Whether it's an acronym or not is largely irrelevant—it is a shorthand. Rufous 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Drugstores sell many articles in addition to drugs, but it would be absurd to deny that the word "drugstore" came from the words "drug" and "store". However incomplete a description "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML" may be of the methodology the term "Ajax" refers to, the derivation is what it is. —Largo Plazo 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop Perpetuating the Acronym Reference

message: :Non-Ajax users would ideally continue to load and manipulate the whole page as a fallback, allowing the developers to preserve the experience of users in non-Ajax environments (including all relevant accessibility concerns) while giving those with capable browsers a much more responsive experience.
This is the last sentence in the article and I wonder if this makes sense? Booles 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me, however it could probably do with some editing for clarity. Artw 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty compressed – I had to read twice and thrice to understand (?) what's intended. I interpret it as: if written well, an Ajax web page is loaded in the conventional way into web browser not fit for using Ajax "tech", while at the same time users of modern web browsers fit for Ajax may enjoy the improved response times inherent in the "tech"; then of course disregarding my personal doubts about time and resources to implement a complicated technique in a time-and-money pressed world. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Ajax 

message: Ay-Jacks or Ah-Jacks? or both?--sin-man 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one is expected to pronounce it the same way one pronounces the Greek hero's name. I usually hear that pronounced Ay-jacks. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matter of taste, but the hero is pronounced I-yux (no pun intended). Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The hero is also pronounced Ay-Jacks Ajax in Merriam Webster's Online DictionaryAjax in Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary Ajax in dictionary.comAjax in dictionary.com. In fact, I haven't found any references for the other pronunciation in English. Razeetg 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: I removed the following, added by 87.203.160.112.  While s/he may have the germ of an idea here, it does repeat information in the article and is not yet ready for the lead section.  S/he also wrecked the References section, so it needed reverting pretty quick.
<removedText>
DHTML + XMLHttpRequest + ServerFiles = Ajax
*DHTML:Filters data for display on the page
*XMLHttpRequest:Transfers data between the server and the page
*Server Files:Provides data that is either static or dynamically generated
 	
 	
 	
 	
How the classic Web user experience works: Although someone can use DHTML, to make changes to the content being displayed on the screen, all of the data used to create the content(displayed or not) of a Web page must be contained within the code that was initially sent. If the user interacts with the page and new data is required to respond to what they have done, a new Web page must be sent from the server and loaded in the browser.
	
How the Ajax Web user experience works: Ajax changes the classic Web experience by allowing the browser to go back to rhe server incrementally to make changes to the content, turning the Web page into a filter that processes data coming from the server. Instead of having to wait as data is sent to the server, the data is sent and received in the background while the visitor continues to work. 
</removedText>
--Nigelj 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 87.203.160.112 

message: This section needs to be edited for encyclopedic tone and grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.35 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Javascript reliability 

message: Is the part about David W. Radcliffe really necessary in this article? I feel it is particularly wrong that the reference points to a zip file.  It's a bit unfit for wikipedia, IMHO. //BankingBum 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David W. Radcliffe  

message: The following is a cut and paste from User:Artw's talk page following a session of edits and revertions. -- SGBailey 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume theres no way of putting in a conditional message? Artw 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The upper-case "AJAX" is very commonly used in organizations and in education, e.g. by Microsoft, Mozilla Foundation, Opera Software, W3Schools, so it has been an accepted standard name. Thus it should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article.--Wengier 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJAX disambiguation 

message: Is it pronouced [A-JACKS] or [I-ACKS]? Kicken18 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronouceation

message: There are some serious Search Engine Optimization issues that IMO need to be discussed in this article, such as: 
I think this topic should not be ignored - many AJAX programmers face huge frustrations daily as they butt heads with SEO's - some informed tactics and best practices can eliminate this frustration - both sides need to be communicating more and don't in fact need to be opposed, because AJAX can be part of a search engine optimized site. Feel free to use this article on AJAX, Web 2.0 and SEO for reference. LunaticBeatnik 01:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather verbose, for me. SEO problem may be solved by extracting dynamic content from other HTML pages, but this is hacking. The problem is in dynamic pages, not in Ajax. Macaldo 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the problem is not in AJAX itself - problem is in how AJAX is applied to the page. For example, is there key content upon initial load, use of unique URL's, etc? On the other side of the coin, AJAX can be a benefit to SEO if used to create a useful AJAX tool or gadget that other site owners would be compelled to link to. If you feel that article is verbose, feel free to reference another source that you feel explains the optimization issues better. SEO for AJAX is not a simple topic, but it does need to be addressed because it is a challenge that developers face every day.LunaticBeatnik 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some basic solutions have been given by Google. The addition of href on dynamic link just for the crawlers. The use of the NOSCRIPT tag with  the dynamic content inside if possible for crawlers too. Macaldo (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEO Considerations 

message: Are there any examples of the use of Ajax, to see it working online ?. --HybridBoy 06:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try searching for it? This article once contained lots of linkspam, which is still available if you click the history tab, but we won't be adding the links back, per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Mindmatrix 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Taken from article:
"The dynamically created page does not register itself with the browser history engine, so triggering the "Back" function of the users' browser might not bring the desired result.
Developers have implemented various solutions to this problem. These solutions can involve using invisible IFRAMEs to invoke changes that populate the history used by a browser's back button. Google Maps, for example, performs searches in an invisible IFRAME and then pulls results back into an element on the visible web page. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) did not include an iframe element in its XHTML 1.1 Recommendation; the Consortium recommends the object element instead."
This implies that it might be possible to use the object element in the same way as using an IFRAME element for populating the browser's history. Is that possible? If so, why does anyone use IFRAME, when object is recommended? Callum85 23:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using objects to record history? 

message: "see also section should not include articles which are wikilinked in the article body."
:Not sure. Macaldo 13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About see also

message: In Constituent Technologies:  "Given [Given that?  Because?] XMLHttpRequest can eliminate the need for page refreshes, other technologies become more prominently used and highlighted with this development approach."  Which other technologies?  Other than what?  Does "prominently" mean "frequently"?  What does "highlighted" mean in this context? In sum, can this sentence be deleted without loss of information? Brec 16:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's esentially saying that because people are using XMLHTTPRequeat to avoid a page reload other technologies - well, Javascript basically - are being used to update the page. But yes, it;s a horrible sentence - feel free to rewrite or delete. Artw 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the sentence, for the reason above: which other technologies? Should be mentionned  . JavaScript is a part of Ajax, the sentence is useless. Macaldo 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't understand this sentence...

message: The Sample Code in the article does not have any context nor is it explained what the code does. Wikipedia is aimed at the layman and I, who knows nothing about AJAX (and that was why I read the article) have no idea what the Sample Code is trying to get across. And in particular, why that piece of sample code, as opposed to any other AJAX code? What makes it special? --Daleh T 10:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample Code 

message: I propose that this article shows an example of the Ajax syntax. "Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of an example of Ajax syntax 

message: This section should talk about AJAX testing. Please contribute your views.
Pratheepraj (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ajax testing? What do you mean? -- FatalError 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pratheepraj: Nobody is obliged to contribute. Macaldo (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJAX Testing 

message: Did anyone hear about "Comet" and can describe what it is? There is a lot of discussion going on in the Comet (programming) article. Thanks for feedback. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comet is basically the same thing as reverse Ajax. It doesn't necessarily need to use Ajax, but it's basically a method of having the server push information to the client, instead of the other way around. This is used on web applications that need instant feedback or notifications, such as meebo and Facebook Chat. Most of the time it's done using long-lived connections that the server keeps alive until something happens (i.e. an instant message is sent). The server then sends the information to the browser and closes the connection, and another connection is opened, etc etc. Does that make sense? Basically, it's a horrible hack to work around the fact that browsers haven't implemented sockets yet. — FatalError 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback! I gave reverse Ajax article a try, please have a look if you are interested. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't delete the link to reverse Ajax and replace it with a link to the Comet article . It has been said (on both talk pages) that those two things are not the same. As long as there is no consensus I would suggest not to delete links to related articles... and reverse Ajax as a design pattern of Ajax shows a close relationship. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comet is an Ajax design pattern? 

message: Hi, in a recent discussion it was said  that this Ajax article does not explain very well the topic. Are there any major problems or things that need to be fixed? - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is that there are very few good sources in the article, and most of it seems to be original research. Also, I think a lot of the sections are very poorly written and extremely hard to follow. It has the information, it just needs to be sourced and rewritten. — FatalError 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I should probably add that it's hard to tell solely from the article what Ajax specifically is. It seems to only have a broad definition. For example, I always thought Ajax only used the XMLHttpRequest object, but according to this article, you can also use IFrames and <script> tags. But again, this information isn't sourced, so I don't know whether to trust it. I think in this case, it would be best to find sources back from when Ajax was first coined, to get an idea of what it actually means. When I get some time, I'll do some research on the topic. — FatalError 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ajax is entirely defined by the article of J.J Garrett (since he as invented the term!). Ajax uses only XHR (and not iframe or other technologies), otherwise IT IS NOT AJAX. Macaldo (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment? 

message: I have removed the "Disadvantages" section because it was plagiarized from here, and Wikipedia's policies require immediate removal of copyrighted content. If someone finds that the information is under a free license, feel free to revert my edit and post here. Otherwise, we're going to have to rewrite it. — FatalError 05:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that website copied the text from here. I feel like an idiot. — FatalError 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Because the article was completely unsourced and full of original research, I have taken it upon myself to rewrite the article. I have removed a lot of the article that was unsourced and I couldn't find sources for. Everything else I rewrote and found sources for. I have attempted to compile a list of major changes I have made and their rationale:
* Combined the first two paragraphs and removed info that's covered later in the article
* Removed third paragraph (unnecessary)
* Rewrote most of the History section
**  Removed original research
**  Found sources for unsourced info
**  Removed the part about the W3C proposals (they don't have much to do with Ajax)
**  Removed the part about the Remote Scripting frameworks (irrelevant)
* Removed Rationale section (really unneeded)
* Turned Advantages and Disadvantages into lists
**  Removed "Separation of data, format, style, and function" from Advantages (original research, not specific to Ajax)
**  Slimmed down "Bandwidth usage" entry (most of it was a repetition of the same thing)
**  Removed "Response-time" from Disadvantages (not specific to Ajax)
**  Removed "Web analytics" from Disadvantages (that's the fault of the analytics software, not Ajax)
* Removed the  template (not needed anymore, almost all the info is sourced)
I will now be more agressive in removing original research, and I urge everyone to follow suit. Most of what was in the article was information from blogs, forums, and other unreliable sources. Before adding new content, please make sure you have a reliable, verifiable source. Thank you. — FatalError 06:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliantly done, someone really needed to take the axe to this. Great work! bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the original and good content has been removed over the time by a lot of stuff that has nothing to do in this page. In most case, these additions were made in the sole purpose to add a link in reference (to his own site, of course). You have to consider that before to ask for more references. Macaldo (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Boulevardier: I removed several link to lists of benefits and disadvantages of Ajax. This is no more information in these articles that in the present page: the same lists... Please take a look at the articles... Macaldo (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole point of having the references there - see WP policy on verifiability and the style guide on citation. Without citing a source for everything we say, it's original research. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I removed the Exforsys cite which was an obvious copy and paste and reword-like-a-high-schooler job (compare this June 2, 2007 revision with exforsys, which I'm guessing by the comment was published in June 2007). All the other cites, however, seem to be valid references that were written before their content was included in the article. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the interest of "XMLHttpRequest Usability Guidelines"? There is an XMLHttpRequest article that explain all that in Wikipedia! Macaldo (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The XHR article doesn't talk about accessibility issues, which is mainly what I used the reference for. — FatalError 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in reference do not talk about accessibility (AIRA) too. For the other references, most of them are not notable (less than 10 delicious saved, few backlinks, poor PR). And also we do not need reference about things we can easily verify by experience! Macaldo (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we do! Just because you can verify it doesn't mean everyone else can. Like I said before, readers need to be able to verify the information with sources, not experience. Notability of articles does not matter in this case, verifiability and reliability do. And I'm not using the reference to describe AIRA, that's a completely different topic which, as you've probably noticed, I removed from the article due to a lack of sources. So as of right now AIRA is completely irrelevant to the article. — FatalError 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference