Talk:Ajax (programming)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Push/Pull JavaScript

Push/Pull JavaScript (the oldest Anchestor to what today is refered to as 'Ajax') works with normal Frames and does not require iframe. I was introduced as soon as Browsers supported Frames in general. Frames with the size of 0 where used to load dynamically generated JS arrays, which then where periodically loaded by a JS DOM manipulator in the visible Frame. So the anchestor of Ajax was *not* dependant on IE or iframe. It was dependant on Frames, which where introduced in Netscape 2.0 and not in IE. Please correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.3.230 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

I archived the talk page because it was getting really big. Discuss the new Controversies section here. I'll put in my thoughts sometime, but right now I need to get some sleep, I don't even know why I'm on. — FatalError 07:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ajax (programming)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Symbol unsupport vote.svg In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 14, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

  • The amount of material removed from this article has resulted in it no longer meeting the broadness GA criteria (3a).
  • The present format is little more than a series of lists, hence it also fails the well written criteria (1b).

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it a easy mean to retrieve the version that was approved as a Good Article? Macaldo (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The decision is right. Is it possible to restore an older approved version? Macaldo (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

try —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.138.151 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Advantages

The following is listed under advantages:

The use of Ajax can reduce connections to the server, since scripts and style sheets only have to be requested once.

It seems to me that this advantage is only realised if the web server has not been properly configured. Regardless of whether you use Ajax, the HTTP Expires header should be set to a suitable value for each script and stylesheet to avoid unnecessary requests (a common technique being to set an expiry date far in the future and rename the files if something changes). —Safalra (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The actual benefit is that the browser actually keeps a cached copy of much of the user interface, thus speeding up the startup of that application Nanowork (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Disadvantages

The following is listed under disadvantages:

  • Because most web crawlers do not execute JavaScript code, web application ...

this statement is no longer true, or, more correctly, this is certainly not true in regards of the prominent ones (Google etc) Nanowork (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if crawler read JavaScript, it is rather limited, just to grab some links... Macaldo (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentle suggestion

I just cut this from the page...

This article is seriously flawed as you can tell by actually _reading_ the references. In reality, AJAX is a neat little acronym referring to the use of the XmlHttpRequest object or equivalent by using client-side javascript. Contrary to the information above (which I can't edit, hence this diatribe), javascript *is* required(although XML is definitely not!). As for the "asynchronous" moniker, that just depends upon how you define asynchronous - at a physical level, with the von Neumann architecture everything is synchronous. We add layers of abstraction that make things appear to be asynchronous, and it really just depends upon the level at which you choose to interact with the machine. Ho hum. How long before this gets removed?

I cut it because it didn't belong there. The person who put it there obviously knows what he/she is talking about. I don't know why they couldn't edit the first paragraph, did they click the edit tab at the top? It's odd that the first section of an article does not have "edit" at the right like the others, but it seems to be the way Wikipedia just is. I hope the knowledgeable person I mentioned will do the edits the page needs, as I don't know Ajax. The Real Walrus (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

History

Just a quick note: In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the History section, the subject doesn't actually have a verb associated with it. I don't know the intent of the author, so I don't know how to fix it. --dustin

Yeah it does. "...alternative technologies...date back to the mid 1990s." It does sound kinda weird though, so if you'd like to reword it go ahead. — FatalError 06:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About Getting Started

Please do not link to this introduction to Ajax without caution. Even if it is reputable, it is dedicated to Mozilla browsers and contains statements as httpRequest.overrideMimeType('text/xml'); that are not standard. Macaldo (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean up Disadvantages Section

Please would someone clean up the Disadvantages section, as I think it is highly inaccurate.

  • Opens up another attack vector for malicious code that web developers might not fully test for.

This statement is not true, as can be seen from the Comment posted in the same reference at http://www.developerfusion.com/article/6197/testing-for-security-in-the-age-of-ajax-programming/. The poster pointed out that the security model for Ajax is the same as conventional web applications development models, hence Ajax applications do *NOT* "open up" another attack vector for malicious code. It just inherits the security model from conventional web development. Moreover, Ajax, if written well, leverages Object-oriented (OO) Javascript, which can impose different levels of access to different methods/fields in an object. This simply means that the security model of Ajax-based applications can be enhanced from the conventional web development methodology. Of course, it still depends on whether the Ajax developer would implement these methods in his web design. Otherwise, if poorly written, his Ajax application would just have minimal Ajax functionality (client-server communication without page refresh), but would have the same security model as conventional web applications.

  • Because most web crawlers do not execute JavaScript code, web application ...

Agree with Nanowork on this one. Search engines and web crawlers *DO NOT* need to execute Javascript in order to index web pages. In fact, most web crawlers depend on server-side languages like Java/C#. Well-written Ajax apps (like those from Google) have indices for each state in their application, which can either be indexed by these web crawlers (for public pages), or even be used by the same application when clicking the Back button.

  • Pages dynamically created using successive Ajax requests do not automatically register themselves with the browser's history engine, so clicking the browser's "back" button may not return the user ...

Also, for this one, we can now click the "back" button by a number of methods, including the Workaround described on the main page, which actually changes the anchor for the URL, same method used for the previous bullet.

I would suggest to remove disadvantages that already have workarounds, since solutions already exist to those problems that used to be disadvantages at one time to Ajax-based applications, but are no longer disadvantages now.

Also, I would suggest including related technologies that are required to build well-written Ajax applications, such as OO Javascript [Javascript as a prototypal language, inheritance, polymorphism, object literals], Ajax MVC (Model-View-Controller), and asynchronous (non-blocking) client-server messaging. I would also suggest links to the Document Object Model (DOM), and adding a Security Section to discuss about the vulnerabilities of Ajax, and link to pages about IP protection, Javascript compression and obfuscation, etc.

Also, since Ajax may not be all Javascript-based or XML-based, discussions on other client-side remote scripting languages (Ruby Script, VBScript, etc.) and data formats (JSON, etc.) to perform the same tasks can be included. 210.19.133.3 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)daniel.kho

There are disadvantages that are not inherent to Ajax. And when workaround exist, yes they may be mentionned. For the other relative technologies, they have probably a dedicated article and they could be linked from the "see also" section, sure. Macaldo (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved by who

FatalError: These links are here for three years at least. Of course things may change. But until it is proven Ajax has changed in depth, the tutorial should not be considered as deprecated. Beside that, you and others have added twenty "references" that are links to poor websites without notability or special reference themselves. Please do not remove serious references in this page that becomes more and more spammed and of poor value (they are are still some good references in the list anyway). Macaldo (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because it's not notable, I removed it because it's a tutorial. See WP:NOT. — FatalError 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Your statement that a link is not approved because it is here for years could not apply to a page that is largely viewed and very often edited. The links are approved by a large majority of visitors. The rule that is relevant here is WP/EL: What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as ... online textbooks) or other reasons.".
A tutorial with code samples is exactly that. And there are links to tutorials in most articles on WP.
If you want to delete an approved link, you have to submit it for deletion first in the present discussion. Or change the rules on WP/EL. Macaldo (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Tutorials provide no information about the topic, they teach you how to use it. Big difference. — FatalError 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing it once again. I've discussed this issue here, and for the most part, the responses said that a link would be okay as long as it is of good quality and provides more information than you could find by simply Googling "Ajax tutorial". The link that currently exists does not fit under either category. If you can find an in-depth tutorial that, for example, explains advanced techniques possible with Ajax (or otherwise something that isn't included in every other Ajax tutorial on the web), feel free to link it. — FatalError 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I want to add that the dmoz link includes several tutorials. I don't see a reason why we need a specific one on the article page. — FatalError 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Has said before, the link was approved and you have to gain several votes for its deletion. Not just your mind. The reason is the service to user. On Dmoz, there is a lot of links as you have noticed and users have to try each one before to find the right one. The links on Dmoz have not been approved by Wikipedia contributors. About advanced techniques, maybe those that are searching for Ajax and who come here, are not interested in such advanced technique. Just to know how to use Ajax. But even if your are right, you must have vote from other contributors. Macaldo (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You still don't get it... Wikipedia isn't a democracy, nothing has to be approved. Wikipedia is built on consensus. I don't want to bring your editing history into this, but you have the exact same discussion on your talk page, yet you still persist. There was no consensus to add that link as far as I can tell. It was randomly added and simply never removed. Again, the link gives absolutely nothing that the dmoz link does not. — FatalError 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Also: did you completely ignore the discussion I had on WP:EL? If you want third-party opinions, there they are. — FatalError 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeh! Very interesting discussion. But it is in favor of inclusion of such links. Example: "I'd support inclusion of such link so long as the host is known for good quality information and the intention of such tutorials is primarily for educational purposes". The author of the tutorial is contributor and translator of the spec.
And the problem with Dmoz is that it is far to be daily edited. There is a link to an "Ajax Tutorial" for example that is a blog, does not hold any tutorial and was not modified for several month. A waste of time for visitors. Macaldo (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Notability of the author doesn't necessarily make it a good quality tutorial. Just read it; it's full of grammatical/spelling mistakes, and (as I said before) doesn't contain any content that can't be found in any other tutorial on the web. (In fact, I'll go a step further and say that particular tutorial is really generic and sounds like every other Ajax tutorial on the web.)
I don't have a problem with adding a tutorial to the External Links section, but it should be a good tutorial, and everyone in that discussion seems to agree. — FatalError 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In a previous comment (see archive) I have deplored that you have deleted a lot of stuff in the article. As a result of that the article was removed from GA:
"amount of material removed from this article has resulted in it no longer meeting the broadness". This is stated in the GA Reassessment comment above in this page. Beside that you have added a lot of discutable references. I have just deleted one of these "reference" because it is a broken link. A true reference can not become broken.
You have your personal opinion about the tutorial, but it is popular, that can be easily verified with the SeoQuake extension for Firefox or similar tools. And the quality of a tutorial is in the validity of its content by also in its educational nature. Macaldo (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There are even more Delicious bookmarks to the tutorial than on the article according to SeoQuake! Macaldo (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) MySpace is also popular, but does that make it appropriate to link to? No. Popularity does not make quality. But I really don't want to argue anymore about such a trivial thing, so keep it if you so wish. The material I removed was all original research and, quite frankly, complete bullshit. But I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion. Honestly, Ajax is such a vague and relatively new term that I don't think it's feasible (yet) to turn this article into a GA without starting to break Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NOR and WP:V. Looking back, there is some (however small of an amount) old information that I regret removing (specifically in the old Accessibility section). However, at the time, I removed it because it was completely unreferenced, and things like that need good references. I'm sure that there are more now, especially with the WAI-ARIA documents being in better shape now than back then, so if you'd like to help me add back that info with proper citations, that would be great. I don't want to ruin this article, because right now it really isn't much more than a "pros/cons" article with some background info (I know, it's my fault), but at the same time I don't want to have it be comprised completely of false and/or unverifiable facts. Does that make sense? — FatalError 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to work to improve the article, and this can be done by using the version of the article that was elected as a good article. For the references, they are not always required. They are required mainly when doubt is possible. Macaldo (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, that version was full of unencyclopedic and utterly wrong information. 90% of the article was original research. There is no point in reverting back to the old version. Instead, we should add information from the old one that still belongs. — FatalError 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How is AJAX pronounced? I've always gone with the way the Dutch Football Club is pronounced (Ayacks) rather than the War Rocket from Flash Gordon (Eh-jacks) --Bigcalm (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it the way you do, and that's how I most often hear it. — FatalError 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if it must be pronounced AJAX or Ajax? Spankman (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It was coined as "Ajax" (not "AJAX"), and since he's a USAian, I'm confident it is pronounced à la "Eh-jacks" (not "Ayacks"). That said, it's a silly buzzword, and you should feel free to format it as "Shibbiwha?" and pronounce it as "Ayayayayayayay!". ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About reference to XHR

The reference is to an intermediate version of the document (05 April 2006), I suggest to link to the last version http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ unless there is some reason to link to a previous one. Macaldo (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's referring to the first draft. — FatalError 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, historical document, but the last version is more useful. I'll consider adding it to references too. Macaldo (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point. It's there as a reference for the first document. Re-read the sentences, it talks about the first draft. It wouldn't make sense to add the newest version (although it would make sense to add it to the External Links section). — FatalError 22:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the last version there is a link to the first draft. This is enough to give a reference to the date of the first draft. But the content of the first draft is useless. Less obvious but sufficient. Macaldo (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. But you're right, it is less obvious, so why change it? — FatalError 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree the link to security issues turned into a reference. I had that in mind too. Macaldo (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ajax Q&A

I have added a link to the article of JJG for its Q&A section. I know the article is already cited in references, but I believe it must be hightlighted. It would be better if we could link directly to Q&A but I have not found a mean to do that. Macaldo (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the link description to just describe the article. I agree that it should be linked, because not everyone looks at the references, but I don't think we should point out just the Q&A section, especially when it's on the same page as the actual article. — FatalError 22:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you can agree with the opinion of someone else, a day? Macaldo (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I can, it just seems like I can't with you. :) — FatalError 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article

I have retrieved the version of the article that was passed as a Good Article (August 2006). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajax_(programming)&diff=71901900&oldid=71896267 Should be as an objective guideline to improve the content...
Read also the comments about the promotion in GA. Macaldo (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed

FatalError: About "Ajax, or AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML)", do you have any serious reference? In the JJG article, it is Asynchronous JavaScript + XML. And if it is oftern typed AJAX this is just the place to correct a mistake, I believe. And please, cease to do the opposite of what I do, this is annoying. I know what I do, you do not. Macaldo (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"The name is shorthand for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML, and it represents a fundamental shift in what’s possible on the Web.". Here is the meaning of the term, according to J. J. Garrett. Macaldo (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the label of your last post: "Features new to Windows 7 ‎ (added a reference for improved multi-core performance (someone else can turn that into a proper reference))". Apparently other contributors are your household. Macaldo (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, just Google the web... AJAX is used more than Ajax, so I'd say it's a notable spelling worth mentioning. No reference needed. Half the references we're currently using (including ones I did not add) use AJAX. I'm not trying to do the opposite of what you do, you've just been making a lot of iffy edits lately. And that last comment was completely uncalled for. Wikipedia is not my job; if I don't want to put a proper reference, I won't. I'm donating my free time to help Wikipedia. How can you even say that? I'm viewing that as a personal attack. — FatalError 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Google returns a lot of links from AJAX but most of them actually refer to Ajax. The only true AJAX writting is used by ASP.NET AJAX that is not standard. The guys that actually use AJAX define it as Asynchronous JavaScript And XML, where the A of And gives the second A of AJAX. But in the definition of Garrett, there is not And XML, there is + XML. So the acronym is AJ+X.
My question was "Where is the reference to Asynchronous Ajax And XML"?
You have some misconception about notability. Lot of people believe that Earth was created by God in 6 days. Do we have to inform the World that Earth was created in 6 days? If Ajax is badly written by most people, it is our mission to give the right writting. Macaldo (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying AJAX is correct, I'm saying it's written that way by a lot of people (more than Ajax even, if I am correct). I don't see why you have a problem with it, it's fine how it is now ("also written as AJAX"). — FatalError 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
My question was "Where is the reference to Asynchronous Ajax And XML"?
But this is enough, this article has a kind of watchdog that has made it removed from GA, added lot of bad references that turn into broken links, and want to impose his iffy views at any cost and I want not lost my time to try to improve it without the help of other serious editors. Macaldo (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Constituent technologies

I've just brought back the "Constituent technologies" section from an older version of the article. I don't know why that was removed before (by an anonymous editor), but looking back, I think it's a fairly useful section. Notable disagreements about which technologies belong to Ajax can be summarized there. Note that I've only moved a sentence around, otherwise it's the exact same version as before, so feel free to change it around or whatever. If you don't feel it belongs in the article, discuss. — FatalError 02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Advantages -> "Rationale"

Again, I'm using an older version of the article as a reference, and I think we should combine all the listed items in the current "Advantages" section and instead make a "Rationale" section like before. This way, it would be more than just a list, and at the same time we would get rid of the Advantages/Disadvantages issue that Wikipedia discourages. Thoughts? — FatalError 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete, Merge or Rename

As ajax is just a marketing acronym (at least historically), as such it does not belong to Wikipedia according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. As such it should be renamed. Also, half a dozen other similar 'techniques' or trendy acronyms exist for making http transactions happen over http (AJAST, AJthis, AJthat). Aaand knowing from the google and jquery apps I've built or modified, most of 'AJAX' is not really asynchronous or XML, its not really article worthy. These all should be merged. Lets discuss before I make a proposal for deletion or move stuff around. Casimirpo (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you being serious? When have you actually heard any other term used in this context? The fact that you think it's "just a marketing acronym" doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. It's a widely used acronym, certainly notable enough for WP:N. — FatalError 06:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Acronym vanity is not a good motive to keep a particular article, however infatuated to the acronym you or google masses might be. Redirecting would be more appropriate. WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Ajax deserves a stub at best. Articles on AJAX, AXAH, AHAH, AxsJAX, Ajax.NET, xajax, Sajax should all be merged into some meaningful article on javascript techniques to avoid creating a dictionary or a second-rate technical manual. Casimirpo (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
But this is that article. I know you're relatively new here, but I suggest you take a look at WP:Notability. Ajax is most certainly a notable term by Wikipedia's standards. Lots of reliable sources have used the term. Just because it's an acronym doesn't mean it should be deleted. And judging by the fact that you tried to delete the article on the July 2009 cyber attacks, I'd highly recommend you go over Wikipedia's policies before you propose a deletion. — FatalError 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
FatalError - Well, if this article is indeed notable and worthy, then it should be a breeze to tackle these points. Your point on large number reliable sources is true. As a word or term "Ajax" is probably as popular as a similarly vague "Web 2.0". However, that a term or acronym is popular or noted does not mean it would automatically qualify for notable, neutral, or accurate article. I would like to hear arguments on following:
the acronym Ajax or the expanded phrase "asynchronous javascript and xml" is inaccurate by definition and confusing. The whole web by nature is asynchronous! There really are no non-asynchronous http-transactions between web-servers and -web-browsers (technically it's possible but unheard of). The method that client and server exchange data with is HTTP - the "method" described in the article actually refers to the interfaces available on the client-end (browser). XML or XMLHTTPRequest-object is usually not used as developers use libraries that work differently. And so-on. Whatever Garrett originally described, isn't there.
Why have an article on a term thats verifiably inaccurate? In that sense term "ajax" is similar to the term "cyber-attacks" that FatalError referred to in your previous comment - it is just a fancy sounding word, with ambiguous, peacocky character. Kind of thinly stretched WP:PEACOCK.
Secondly, are we from now on going to delete everybody else than Garrett coming up with these terms and the volume, as was discussed on deletion pages yesterday? WP:BIAS Or include every single flashword people come up with that the bandwagon or corporate marketing jumps on (and you know, theres a ton)? WP:NOTADICTIONARY. The way the article presents itself inflates ajax's perceived brevity and importance, it being just one of the many *words* used to describe these techniques for building web-services. Do you think this presents kind of biased and confusing picture? Currently its more like "a term for two or three techniques that enable client-server-communication without causing page-refresh on the browser". That it would include presentation layer or increased the use animations is optimistic at best, or just plain marketing talk, and that contradicts WP:NEUTRAL, too. Casimirpo (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your mention of the term Web 2.0 contradicts everything else you've said because Web 2.0 has its own article. And why not? This is an encyclopedia, and the term is very widely used, so it makes perfect sense to have an article on it. What kind of encyclopedia would Wikipedia be if you couldn't even look up the most popular web development technique by its name?
Anyway, we're not going exactly by Garrett's original definition of Ajax, here. The meaning of the term is not stricly "asynchronous JavaScript and XML" anymore. Yes, that was Garrett's original definition, but it's now an umbrella term, much like Web 2.0, widely used to refer to methods of retrieving data asynchronously (or not) with JavaScript. We are going by the definition that the majority of 3rd party sources are using. Sure, Ajax doesn't have an exact definition, but does that mean we shouldn't have an article on it? Should we delete the articles on Web 2.0 and DHTML? Hey, while we're at it, let's delete the articles emo and gay, because their definitions are "peacocky".
But hey, if you want to list this article for deletion, go ahead. I'm sure you'll find the result of the discussion very similar to last time. — FatalError 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Very well, suppose I agree, for now, that Ajax should have its own article. Tell me, what is it then?
If Ajax is not what's defined in this article, as it is now - quotes from Garrett - why does this article contain that description? And what exactly then is the ajax definition of "majority of 3rd party sources" - since it is not clearly presented in this article. Under 'Constituent technologies' and 'Technologies' there is, aside from notes and references that vbscript or json can be used with ajax, again, *definitions* as quotes from Garrett, which both of us noted didn't have accurate or verifiable definition of Ajax. Thus whats presented in this article is a history of the term Ajax? I dont see notes on ajax being a umbrella term in the article. And I am not quite sure what deleting web 2.0, emo and gay have to do with this article being unverifiable, I guess you were attempting irony? Or was it contempt? Lets try stay on topic here.
The majority of sources that I read on software development and related news tell me Ajax is just a trendy word. For example http://www.alistapart.com/articles/web3point0 . None of the javascript developement libraries I know/use apply the term ajax for anything but to referring to the parts that send data between browser and server, "requests" (see jQuery, the biggest http://docs.jquery.com/Ajax ), or do not use the word Ajax at all, not even for the requests the clients js lib makes from the browser, simply using the word "request". (ie. Mootools http://mootools.net/docs/core/Request/Request). Ajax is found a lot on tutorials and news articles, capitalizing on the popularity of the term, but those sources are not 'authoritative'.
Either the title or the content of this article is somehow fundamentally faulty. FatalError - what I want is not relevant. You seem to border on wanting to put me down for pointing out shortcomings here. Issue here was that this article isn't really verifiable even if it might superficially appear so. And while Ajax is a popular term - with millions of ajax and web related hits on google - it might be very hard to have a definition for it that is verifiable. The point of this discussion is to handle that, relevant of how infatuated you might be with the term or this article. Casimirpo (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) First of all, let me just say that personally, I completely agree with you about the term. I think it's mainly used as meaningless marketing hype these days. "Ajax web applications" are really just web applications that use JavaScript.

That said, going by Wikipedia's policies and the whole point of an encyclopedia, I believe this article should not be deleted. However, you're right in that the article in its current state does not emphasize the fact that the definition has changed from when Garrett coined the term. I fully understand that, and if I had more time, I would take a day to rewrite parts of the article to reflect that, but that's no reason to delete an article. Articles should only be deleted if they cannot be improved to comply with Wikipedia's policies. This article can.

Oh, and I don't know what you meant with jQuery not using Ajax for "the parts that send data between browser and server", because that's exactly what they use it for. Anyway, it doesn't matter, I just thought I'd correct you on that. :) — FatalError 05:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ajax is not an acronym and it is not expanded to asynchronous javascript and xml. FatalError, it is also your fault by generalyzing Ajax to almost anything on the Web that interacts with a server to diluting the concept and to lead to confusion. Ajax is a precise and delimited set of technologies. We have to return to the orginal meaning of the term coined by Garrett to stop such polemic.
Apart that, this article was in the list of good articles, that can not be done without serious study about its accuracy! However it need to be improved.
"This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale." (See at top of the task page). Macaldo (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this term is advertisement and the article itself has always had minimal content without all the filler. Besides the first sentence of the introduction, the first sentence of the history, and the second list of technologies involved in Ajax, about a whole paragraph all together, there is absolutely nothing else on the article of any value or relevance to Mr. Garret's definition of Ajax. The rationale and drawback sections are completely irrelevant.

It's also preposterous to say Ajax has led to an increase in interactive animation on web pages. The XMLHttpRequest object is what made sending XML/data to and from the server to create interactivivity rise in popularity, not some word coined in the shower during bath time.

The term itself, as defined by Mr. Garret, is a connect the dots word of technologies that already went hand and hand. The XMLHttpRequest object is defined as a DOM object, the DOM is defined as a language-independent (JavaScript, VBScript, ...) way to represent and interact with objects in HTML, XHTML, and XML, and CSS is defined as being used for presentation of HTML, XHTML, and XML. All the technologies involved in Ajax already existed and were used together before this term existed. I can only assume the masses simply suffer from hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia for the term Ajax to be thrown left and right to describe nothing but existing technologies that went together perfectly fine without it.

I'd go as far as saying this article should redirect to Mr. Garret's article that has about two paragraphs of content, too. This term is dictionary quality. People are constantly bastardizing this term's meaning to make it seem like it's more than what it is, but it's not. I can't possibly see this article going anywhere beyond a paragraph without straying from its true meaning. An alternative to merging would be to create an article about the ways of creating HTTP requests through the DOM, having Ajax as one, but even then, it's still just the XMLHttpRequest object or something else doing the HTTP requests through a scripting language on the DOM to manipulate a DOM document and Ajax is only the four letter way of saying that — dictionary material. --Quilokos (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think possibly you've missed the last five or six years of the internet. Artw (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Because Ajax is some magical new technology? Maybe all I missed was the fact that hoards of novice programmers picked up the word like it was. The introductory to the word Ajax, sometimes written AJAX because it's just that consistently understood by all, on most websites differs but usually consists of these basic elements:
  • It's the new thing!
  • XML HTTP Requests
  • JavaScript / XML / DOM
Sounds just like the XMLHttpRequest object to me, which has primarily been around — hey — for the last five or six years of the Internet. And if I am wrong, hopefully that will at least show that this article is so poorly written that nobody can understand what is being talked about if they don't already understand this hype. --Quilokos (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I have an idea, why don't you rewrite the article and stop complaining? — FatalError 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But the definition of Ajax has changed! No one uses it in its original context anymore. It does not literally mean "asynchronous JavaScript and XML" anymore. Take a look at how the press uses it. As an example, look at ZDNet's definition of Ajax. And according to WP:V and WP:RS, we have to take the word of secondary, third-party sources (the press) over primary ones (Garret's article). — FatalError 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If that source were to be used, then that would suggest Remote Scripting and Ajax should be merged based on the text: "AJAX, also known as remote scripting." The content of the remote scripting article on Wikipedia seems to be the article I was referring to with by creating one that has the ways of creating HTTP requests through the DOM. I would have no problem with these being merged. The article AJAST was removed; it was a set of less common technologies/techniques used to create HTTP requests through the DOM. There's countless other articles that need to be deleted before this one still, however; AXAH, AHAH, AxsJAX, Ajax.NET, xajax, Sajax, Ajax4jsf, Rico_(Ajax), …. I understand Ajax is "hot," but it owes its popularity to XMLHttpRequest. And, again, if we want to define Ajax as a catch all word for Remote Scripting, then these articles should be merged into one. Wikipedia just needs some clean-cut definitions; not all this jargon and similar articles. --Quilokos (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm with you on that, but if we merge the two articles, Ajax should be the one still standing. Why? Because no one ever uses the term "remote scripting", or any other term, really. It's not nearly as notable a term as "Ajax", and thus I think this should be the main article. But I'd be happy to merge the two articles (and all the other ones you mentioned) into one all-encompassing one. I agree that it makes more sense to have one article on the broad concept of asynchronous requests using JavaScript than having a bunch of small ones on the individual techniques. — FatalError 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The definition of Ajax by ZDNet is definitely objectionable. Where have they found this acronym: Asynchronous JAvaScript and XML? And this is not XMLHTTPRequest but XMLHttpRequest instead. Better references are desirable. Macaldo (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, Macaldo, how about a reference from good old Jesse James Garrett himself? In this podcast, JJG said:

Also, if you read his article, he uses technologies like the XMLHttpRequest object and XML as examples, not as concrete requirements for Ajax. — FatalError 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FatalError, the sources he has provided, and the numerous accounts on the web that show that this term has been stretched to mean that. This article needs to be rewritten to say something along those lines and the mentioning of "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML," and the original technologies should be merged into the history section to prevent confusion. From the words of Mr. Garret above, rewored with the technical terms, Ajax is the technique of sending HTTP requests and processing HTTP responses through the DOM to update the current document object (user interface) instead of a new document object being loaded and destroying the user interface/interaction. This article should start out with words like this and lose the AJAX part to the history section.
The article currently reads like an update log; it has gone from meaning this, to this, to this — it needs to have a precise and concise (the current) definition at the top and the history has the past meanings. This will likely cut the article down in size, but it makes it less confusing and has much more potential for growth than "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML," which is hardly notable by itself and the reason the deletion/merge was brought up. I support FatalError or someone rewriting this article and destroying the other AHAH, AJAH, AJXX, Remote Scripting articles for the sake of one definition and an end to all of this jargon to define one concept. --Quilokos (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't think it will shrink the size of the article, though, since we'll be talking about the different techniques used (essentially merging the content from all the articles into one). And then it would be more than just a series of lists, as it is now. I will try to find some time to rewrite the article; in the meantime, anyone is free to contribute. If you don't want to write any of the article, just discuss what exactly needs to be written, and I or someone else will turn that into encyclopedic text. If anyone would like to voice their opinion against such a merge, fire away. Thanks in advance. — FatalError 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the definition by J.J.Garrett:
"Defining Ajax
Ajax isn’t a technology. It’s really several technologies, each flourishing in its own right, coming together in powerful new ways. Ajax incorporates:
standards-based presentation using XHTML and CSS;
dynamic display and interaction using the Document Object Model;
data interchange and manipulation using XML and XSLT;
asynchronous data retrieval using XMLHttpRequest;
and JavaScript binding everything together."
Macaldo (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Macaldo, that definition is from the February 18th, 2005 article by Mr. Garrett. [1] Mr. Garrett has since elaborated on the defintion, as FatalError has pointed out in the above paragraph; please read everything before commenting or else this conversation will continue in a never ending cycle.
FatalError also stated if the whole original article is read, one can deduce that Mr. Garrett meant the elaborated defintion since the beginning. Take the original article under the Q & A, Garret answers the question, "Is Ajax just another name for XMLHttpRequest," with, "No. XMLHttpRequest is only part of the Ajax equation. XMLHttpRequest is the technical component that makes the asynchronous server communication possible; Ajax is our name for the overall approach described in the article, which relies not only on XMLHttpRequest, but on CSS, DOM, and other technologies." For this statement to be taken as the technologies involved, it would mean that this answer is a lie and that Ajax is only the XMLHttpRequest object because the XMLHttpRequest object already requires the DOM, which requires a scripting language (JavaScript) and XHTML/CSS. Now if you look at the answer and emphasize the statement, "Ajax is our name for the overall approach described in the article," and then read the article's approach and look at the diagrams, you see the elaborated definition above without any technologies involved.
Gmail and a lot of the applications listed as Ajax on the article send the response back in JSON and not XML; I guess this would be another error on the article, too, if you look at Ajax as a set of technologies.
Gmail also uses an IFRAME element instead of the XMLHttpRequest object to do asynchronous file attachment uploads while you write your e-mail. The Remote Scripting article is about using the IFRAME element (or other elements that can create HTTP requests through the DOM) to do what Ajax is doing. These articles have the exact same approach, and seeing as Ajax seems to no longer be a set of technologies but an approach, that makes the Remote Scripting article an Ajax approach using the IFRAME; what's the point of having a single paragraph article stating that?
The AHAH and AXAH articles are about the Ajax approach with the request being formatted as HTML; again, a single paragraph.
The Reverse Ajax article is about the Ajax approach with the response being lagged and flushed by the server slowly to minimize the number of connections required to create applications that require many connections such as chat software.
The AJAST article was about the Ajax approach using the SCRIPT element for HTTP requests instead of the XMLHttpRequest object; that article has since been deleted as should the previous ones mentioned.
I don't see how this article will become more confusing by having a clear defintion of an approach that can be achieved through multiple technologies. If Ajax is an approach and not a definitive set of technologies, which it seems to be and can be backed up by sources, that would mean that this article should 1) describe the approach and 2) be the catch all of every combination of technologies that can be used to get the approach. I don't think it'd be the least bit confusing if it's structured correctly. Currently, it is. --Quilokos (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is is clear that XMLHttpRequest is the main part of Ajax and that excludes all other techniques to access the server. These techniques, mainly iframe were here before the article was published and were not cited in the article. Apart that, the article gives a simple, concice, clear definition of what is Ajax. Why to perform some complicated interpretation of the article while a simple definition is given? And if Garrett has since changed his mind, where is the reference to that?
I wonder why you want annoy people with an complicated Ajax article that try to included all the techniques to access the server, while it is not proven that they are relevant and while this complicated article will never be written because noboby has time enough to make it and because editors will never agree to what is relevant and what is not. The proof is that you are speaking about it from days or weeks an not a single line has yet been added to it.
@FataError: XML is cited as an example, but not XMLHttpRequest (that can works with JSON or text). Macaldo (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

About merging

Remote Scripting: a lot of hacking. Could be turned in a list of client-server list of hacks but definitively not to be confused with Ajax.
AHAH: it is a different thing too, not to be merged with Ajax.
AJAH, AJXX: empty pages, could be deleted instead.
Comet: seems to be a list of hacks too.
Reverse Ajax: just a paragraph to be added here.
My opinion is that beside Ajax could be created a list of techniques to access the server, but merging all that together would have just the effect to completely confuse the reader! Macaldo (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The original article by Garrett defining Ajax reads more like an approach than a set of technologies and he has since stated it to be read that way. All of these use the Ajax approach with just slightly differing technologies from the list of technologies defined in the original Adaptive Path article, but they still use the Ajax approach. These articles are of minimal content and the terms are hardly even neologisms. More than half of the text does not even need to be merged because it would lead to redundancy, so these articles are borderline merge, borderline delete in my book. See my comments in the above section for further reason. --Quilokos (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Ajax

(See also). Yes it must be merged with Ajax. Macaldo (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to merge it with Comet? I just glanced at both articles, so maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like "reverse Ajax" and Comet are the same thing. Either way, though, this should be discussed on Reverse Ajax's talk page, not here. — FatalError 02:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no preference. On the article, it is suggested to merge it with Ajax. Macaldo (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)