Jump to content

Talk:Ajax (programming)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposed changes

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)

Paragraph 2, first bullet

XHTML (or HTML) and CSS, for marking up and styling information.

Paragraph 3, sentence 2 and 3

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)

Paragraph 8, first sentence

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.

Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 1, sentence 1

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)
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)
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)

Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 1, sentence 3

Generally only small requests need to be sent to the server, and relatively short responses are sent back.

Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 1, sentence 4

This permits more responsive user interfaces due to the use of DHTML techniques.

Section on "Interactivity", paragraph 2

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.

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

Section on "Usability", paragraph 1, sentences 2 and 3 (combined)

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.

Section on "Usability", paragraph 1, sentence 4

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..

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)
I agree, I don't like iframes too much. Booles 09:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Section on "History", paragraph 3, sentence 2

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)

timeouts session keep alive

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)
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) sdf sf sdf sd sd sd

After reading the article I was going to make this point too. afaik if something happens on the server side, it cannot be transmitted to the client without it being specifically requested by the client. This results in timeouts running constantly on the client side, and I consider it a limitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefram144 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree. Booles 09:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Made the final two changes discussed earlier

Here they are FYI

Paragraph 9, sentence 2

  • Was: "However, they are still used where wide compatibility, small implementation, or cross-site access is required."
  • Is: "However, they are still used where compatibility with older Web sites or legacy applications is required."

Section on "Usability", paragraph 1, sentence 4

  • Was: "Developers have implemented various solutions to this problem, most of which revolve around creating or using invisible IFRAMEs to invoke changes that populate the history used by a browser's back button."
  • Is: "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.)"

I added a a series of articles to the external links, but they got removed. There are actually very good articles, for both the beginner and the expert. They contain very interesting topics and they should really be here, having more the role of a tutorial than a simple article.

I added a link directly to the references section because I had the impression nobody takes care of the discussion here. The link I sugesst for adding to the references section is http://en.pediax.de - this is a project (to which I contributed), which develops ideas for a user-interface for Wikipedia largely based on AJAX. It further enables visitors to geo-browse Wikipedia articles on a map. I think a link to Pediax would be really interesting for the readers of the "Ajax (programming)" article, since it exhibits Wikipedia with AJAX support. soeren 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice, but if we added thid it would open the way for adding other, similar links, and then the article would become a link farm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artw (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to suggest this two web site for External links:

  • ajaxnetbeans.dev.java.net This is a project hosted by java.net, with different Ajax samples in NetBeans project ready, so that people can build and run the applications with minimum effort.
  • Ajax Code Camp 10-Week Free AJAX Programming Online Course ( by Sang Shin, Sun Technology architect, consultant, and evangelist )

That's all Thanks

I've added the following links to the External links section. They're keynote addresses from the Ajax Experience in Fall 2006.

I notice that the Links section has been commented out for a pending review. I am not sure where may I see/contribute to this review, but I would like to point out that the inline references used in the main article (now encapsulated under the References section) should be placed under the same scrutiny as well. --Pkchan 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any formal review is necessary for the external links we have now. They have survived peer review for months. Sugarskane initiated this review after things didn't go his way, but it's nothing personal. We have been over this time and time again: if we start listing Ajax libraries it quickly degenerates into a spamming match. It has happened many times before, until we just started deleting them all outright. Personally I quite like the idea of Feather Ajax, but a link directly from the article is not the right place to put it. Rufous 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because something's been listed for months doesn't mean that it complies with the general policy for the article. Currently there is an external link to the Open Directory project -- I think this should stay. As for the other links, however, I think we DO need to bring some scrutiny. An argument of "That's how it's always been" is not valid -- if it was, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be voting. Please use your best judgment, rather than historical presidence, in deciding whether a link should stay. The following is my humble opinion of what's currently posted:
  • Reference links 1-4 are extremely good sources/references -- they aren't personal pages, and are exactly the type of source that one would expect in an encyclopedia
  • Reference link #5 (Remote Scripting with AJAX, Part 2) has no practical purpose for being listed as a reference. This should be removed.
  • Reference link #6 (Listen kids, AJAX is not cool) has NO business being listed as a reference. It doesn't comply with the typical criteria for being a reference. This should be removed.
  • External link #1 (Open Directory) - This is a great way to send people off to a series of links related to Ajax without cluttering up the page. Keep this!
  • Articles - Any of the articles, with the exception of the first two by Jesse James Garrett (creator of Ajax), should be removed. Articles by Garrett have historical value. The other articles are more like external links, and are no different than the hundreds of external links that have been removed from the article in the past.
  • Tutorials - The Mozilla should stay because it's a tutorial from the horse's mouth. If this were an article on ASP.NET, for example, I would say that anything by Microsoft should be added. Although Mozilla didn't come up with Ajax, it programmed it into its web browser. I would also add that any articles from Opera or Microsoft should be added, if applicable. Other than that, however, it is unfair to keep the two other tutorial articles. Either you add all the tutorials people want to add, or you stick to your guns and only add direct links to pages/companies that have programmed the infrastructure for Ajax.
--Sugarskane 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that links should be always under scrutiny. The relevant guideline for external links is WP:EL and according to my reading:
  • The Open Directory Project listing should be kept as an appropriate web directory to this article. Its being open is a plus.
  • The Garrett articles should also be kept, not merely as external link but as references to be cited at appropriate places in the article's main body, to back up his original point of view.
  • This article: http://www.ajaxinfo.com/default~viewart~8.htm Weighing the Alternatives - How Ajax stacks up against competing RIA approaches is the textbook example of what "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose", and should be removed.
  • These two: http://www.softwaresecretweapons.com/jspwiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JavascriptRefactoringForSaferFasterBetterAJAX JavaScript refactoring for safer, faster, better Ajax and http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ajax-screenreaders-work Techniques to allow screen readers to read off dynamically added content are how-tos, which Wikipedia is not. I see no reason to keep them, so I'll remove them unless someone is going to convince us otherwise.
As for the Tutorials, I would take an even bolder position: it's not Wikipedia's job to recommend any tutorial to the reader. It appears a bit too far-stretched to me to establish that Mozilla should make a better reference than everyone else as they do not hold exclusivity to this technology umbrella. As there does not exist any guideline for us to judge which tutorial to include and which not to (even though if Mozilla would win clearly if judged solely on fame, as fame is not the right measurement here), I would suggest to remove all. But I am open to all other editors' comment on this as well.
As for the cited references, they are not covered by WP:EL but instead WP:RS, which is less clear-cut a guideline than the former. As I see it, link [5] (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/08/22/ajax.html) is not a direct reference on the point of clear feedback to user as it only covers this topic tangentially. However in the absence of a better one this seems the best we can cite for this particular point, so that makes a marginal keep for me unless and until we find a better source as support. Link [6] (http://www.lastcraft.com/blog/index.php?p=19) is a self-published sources and does not fall within WP:RS as an acceptable source, so I'm going to remove that. The rest are all reliable sources and should be kept. --Pkchan 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind regarding the second Garrett article (http://www.ok-cancel.com/archives/article/2005/09/why-ajax-matters-now.html) and have removed it: it offers nothing special to be included here. Not every article written on this topic by the person who coined this phrase is relevant here. --Pkchan 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the tutorials section does not have a place in the article -- users can access relevant tutorials through the Open Directory link. The Mozilla tutorial was the only one I'd considered keeping -- but I think that Pkchan's argument is effective enough to warrant the removal of all the tutorial links. --Sugarskane 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


I would like to nominate http://ajax-tutorials.com as a replacement for Ajax:Getting Started by Mozilla Developer Center and "Building an Ajax page with get, post, text, XML example" in the Ajax Tutorials section.
Why to replace?
Because, those two tutorials force people to believe that they have to write the bunch of low-level script with direct access to the XMLHttpRequest in order to have an Ajax functionality in their own web applications. However, it is not true. It is even not close to truth today. It sounds sooooo 2005ish. Think about it! One and a half year brought the valuable solutions that make life much easy and allows to concentrate on the real business problems, but not on the low-level Javascript programming.
The nominated resource is a completely independent from any particular vender web site exclusively dedicated to the theme of ajax tutorials and presents the wide spectrum of helpful tutorials (no room for blah, blah, blah articles). Currently, ajax-tutorials.com contains more them 130 links to the existing tutorials and updated on the daily bases.
I believe, the readers need to have an access to such up-to-date information.
--Alexa White 05:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


External links are here to avoid users to search documents at Dmoz. The articles of Garrett, etc... are also on Dmoz! This is a very poor argument to remove links. I request revocation of your edit and for restoring the previous links, because users need for them. Booles 09:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Sugarskan, previously, has attempted to add a link to its own website: not the person to speak of spam! But the discussion is opened, please, wait for users to say if they want these links of not. If a lot of users is against the links, remove them. Booles 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Links restored (save the first Garrett article, which is now referenced at the References section) pending further discussion here. I am more than happy to allow the links stay at the article for a couple of days to allow a more elaborated discussion, though I'd expect that a resolution would have been made by then.
I would like to note, however, that any discussion here should revolve around WP:EL and WP:RS. I would be more than happy to listen to your view as to whether my interpretation above is correct or not, but I am afraid it won't be helpful if our discussion here travel out of the scope of WP:EL and WP:RS. In particular, I do not find the argument that the links are "users need them" is convincing enough to keep them: you may find one link useful but another user may find it rubbish. The guideline we should follow is WP:EL, according to which a link should be added if it adds something that it is difficult for the present article to include.
And please also assume good faith while discussing. --Pkchan 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Our Ajax article, as it stands, is a very strong article describing what Ajax is, its history, pros and cons. What it does not include (nor should it include) is a description of how to implement Ajax. This is exactly why we should link to a few strong tutorials at the end of the article. This falls under WP:EL, “Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks.” — i.e. implementation instructions.
The dmoz link is peppered with links to Ajax frameworks, with little or no educational value, which we've tried and succeeded — over the course of many months and hundreds of edits — to keep out of the article. It is a useful inclusion to resolve disputes, but not nearly as useful as directly including good tutorials ourselves. I've been actively editing this page for a long time, and the tutorial collection we have come to agreement on has taken a long time to be decided on. They should remain as part of the article. Rufous 11:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the Sarissa library link should be kept due to the total volume of Ajax libraries available. It does not seem right to add one link, but refuse "hudreds" of others -- it's a slippery slope either way. If Sarissa is kept, then you should allow the addition of additional libraries -- which would be far too numerous, and would make the article a collection of links. Conversely, if Sarissa is removed, then no users will be able to access Ajax libraries from the Ajax page. Would anyone consider a stub on Ajax libraries? Because Wikipedia is a repository of content, not links, and the Sarissa link shows favoritism toward one single library, I don't think the Sarissa link should be kept. As for the 'Building an Ajax Page', I still see this as a tutorial that is no different than the hundreds of other tutorials on the internet. Why is this one so special that it receives the sole spot on the article? Again, Wikipedia isn't a place to store links, and while it may be helpful, I think it is silly of the editors of the article to 'outlaw' any other tutorial links aside from this one. I still argue that they both should be removed. --Sugarskane 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The point of the link discussing the use of Sarissa is not to recommend Sarissa over any other libraries, so please do not characterise it as such. Each of the libraries available have their benefits and issues. It is not favouritism, as other leading libraries are listed in the tutorial. The mention of Sarissa in the link description was not in the spirit of the article though, so I have amended it to say it is discussing a generic “JavaScript library.” We need a tutorial that discusses the use of a library to create cross-browser Ajax without the user writing the code branching code themselves, and this tutorial runs through the design and implementation of a form submission script that does just that. Also, cf. Ajax framework. Rufous 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that this article can do with a few tutorial links. The problem is, what are the criteria for including a link and excluding others (because for obvious reason we can't include all relevant tutorials here). This is not only an editorial issue but also an issue of fairness and transparency, as Wikipedia is a high-traffic website and any link on this article is bound to generate quite an amount of traffic, and we have the responsibility to act fairly to the Ajax tutorials all over the world.
Would you please point to us those previous discussions which lead the Tutorial section to its current state? (I skimmed through the talk archives but didn't find much relevant discussion) Perhaps we can summarise the past criteria applied so that we can use such criteria to judge whether to include a tutorial link or not in the future and make this more transparent (by inserting in at the relevant section of the article as hidden text). --Pkchan 18:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What other leading libraries are listed? Within the article, ARSCIF is listed -- but I can find no other libraries. The Sarissa/Javascript link should be moved to the Ajax Framework article -- it doesn't belong here if you are so insistent about removing 'hundreds' of other links. Judging by the history of the edits, it seems that when a tutorial or library is added, it is promptly removed (usually) without much discussion. Just because you want a short list of external links doesn't mean that any of the removed links shouldn't be listed, and just because you've been editing the article for so long doesn't mean you have ownership of the external links section, or the article itself. Can you point to the relevant discussion that Pkchan is asking for? The Mozilla link is just as informative as the http://www.xul.fr/en-xml-ajax.html link -- why are we including both? The "Sarissa" link isn't even the official Sarissa website! Sarissa belong in the Ajax Framework article -- you aren't learning Ajax if you are using a library -- you'd be learning how to use a prebuilt library. I still vote to remove all but Mozilla. --Sugarskane 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Rufous, I now understand why you've been holding onto the external links section with such fervor. Upon closer examination of your User page, it appears that your name is 'Ross Shannon'. That wouldn't, by any chance, be the same Ross Shannon listed at the very botton of the Cross-browser XMLHttpRequest Tutorial link, would it? I bet that's really giving you a lot of traffic. Due to neutrality concerns via WP:EL ("A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to."), I'm removing your link. You're more than welcome to look at my long discussion with this, as I too added an external link to my page. There are clearly more notable and significant articles on Ajax (the Mozilla link). I suggest you either release your vulcan death grip from the Ajax external links section, or you follow the rules you've been enforcing and leave your page off the EL section. --Sugarskane 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There being no discussion on the external links under the "articles" sub-heading I have now removed them for the reasons stated above. It is possible to re-add the two how-to articles under the "tutorial" sub-heading, provided that we have come up with some plausible criteria on what to include/exclude there. --Pkchan 15:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments earlier in this thread, I feel they are cogent. I sincerely believe that we need good instructional tutorials on implementing Ajax in a practical manner — which means using a library to abstract away the browser compatibility problems. People come here to learn what Ajax is, but also how they can implement it themselves. As I said, tutorials like this clearly fall under WP:EL.
If another editor thinks they have found a tutorial better than this tutorial (which I wrote) for this purpose, then they should add it to the article. I have continually edited my tutorial so that it is — I feel — the best of its kind. It goes through the creation of a form submission script from scratch (one which works when JavaScript is disabled too). I will not add my tutorial to the article myself, but I ask my fellow editors to read it and restore it to the article if they find it relevant and informative. Rufous 23:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose to add an external link to developerWorks Ajax Resource center which provides a complete Ajax Resource repository with features articles, blogs, tutorials and forums.This will also conform to WP:EL guidelines as it contains levels of detail which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I will wait till Nov 8th for soliciting comments. I request people to evaluate the website and provide their feedback on whether it is ideal for this article. I strongly feel it deserves to be here.Mehraj 14.45, 3 November 2006

Security section under "Cons"

Should this section just be entirely removed? I buy the samy worm as an example of a worm that happens to use AJAX, but that seems to be all it is - Samy seems more like an exploit of secutrity flaws in MySpace and in browser handling of Javascript that an AJAX specific worm.

Anyone have any information to the contrary? Artw 18:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The cited comment about the "surface" of attack that AJAX enables is interesting, but I've no idea where that citation comes from. As for the rest of it, I think it's bunk and misguided. AJAX hasn't given hackers anything new that they didn't have before: given JavaScript and HTTP GET you could do everything that the Samy worm did, years ago. It just gives hackers some new ways of doing old things. I mean, the only innovation (and it's not a small one, don't get me wrong) that AJAX brings is the ability to have server interaction without page reloads. That's it. Saying AJAX causes new security holes in sites is like saying a new brand-name of crowbars causes new security holes in cars. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you increase the "surface" area of code that handles network access, you are more likely to have security problems and/or bugs in this area; that is straightforward enough. The quote is probably from this article: http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/52233.html (the Samy worm is mentioned in there as well).--68.238.68.229 09:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to delete a whole sub-section[1] just because the quote was un-referenced. The quote is reported on http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060804/tc_usatoday/cybercrooksaddajaxcodingtobagofhackingtricks
and possibly elsewhere. It is certainly being reported that this attack was in some way related to AJAX, and I think that is a fact worth recording in the article, regardless of ppl's POV. --Nigelj 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Saxifrage, anon and Nigelj that there is something here worth preserving - I find "surface area" concept interesting. Also with Artw that this is an insecurity that just happens to be Ajax. I'd like to see a section on security, and for it to mention that the complexity allowed in Ajax means that security loopholes can be hard to spot, or something like that. Stephen B Streater 20:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see that sort of stuff being useful for the article. Most importantly, though, we need external sources that have already written these things about AJAX, since Wikipedia doesn't publish its editor's original research on subjects. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with that Yahoo article is that it doesn't talk about security holes in AJAX, just that "AJAX can be used to do bad things". This isn't really an exceptional statement, as many things can and have been used to do "bad things". Looking up the two worms cited in the article, it appears the security problems were actually in Yahoo Mail and MySpace, and AJAX was just the tool used to exploit those holes. Like I said about, that's like saying HTTP GET has security issues because it has been used to exploit bugs in Yahoo Mail, or that a browser has security holes because it can be used to exploit security holes in broken web services. Certainly there are people who think AJAX presents new problems, but the article doesn't actually show that their beliefs are true. The only "security holes" in AJAX are the ones it inherets from JavaScript, the browser's implementation thereof, and the website in question. If they didn't have holes, neither would AJAX have "holes". — Saxifrage ✎ 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Decentralization as a discussed advantage of Ajax

Previously, I had added a section discussing one of the advantages of Ajax which has helped to make it a popular technology. My contribution may not yet be brilliant prose, and might require citations in a few choice locations or massaging, but I would like to discuss it WP:BRD. Do you feel this bullet point can be refined to meet your expectations, and if so what should I do? Or if not, please tell me why you feel the point is unsalvageable? Thank you. Jesset77 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that end-user machines are becoming more powerful and bandwidth is becoming more plentiful, a web application server will have a more difficult task time-sharing between a large number of clients. To save resource costs, it may behoove web service operators to use Ajax to export much of the workload directly to the clients themselves. Workload performed by one client fails to distract the service provider from answering the queries of other clients, and also helps bring to bear computing resources that the client may otherwise be underutilizing.

Merged Desktops

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)

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)
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)
Good call. --Sleepyhead 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Good article

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)

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)

Ajax Mobile

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)

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)
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)

Implementations of AJAX

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) Mark

Look here.
Booles 09:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably bets to keep any mentions of specidfic frameworks or libraries out of the main article as it would lead to everyone trying to get their favoured one as the lead example. Artw 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioend above, opera implemented AJAX in their mobile browser, with various widgets. Mathiastck 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

I did not submit the comment below. It is unsigned.Harborsparrow 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to request that you consider adding a link to Klir Analytics as a Web 2.0 network monitoring tool built using AJAX:

  • www.klir.com An example of web based performance management software using an AJAX interface]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timventura (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

Stop Perpetuating the Acronym Reference

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Ajax vs. AJAX

The article should settle on whether it's "Ajax" or "AJAX" and use only that form. My vote's for "Ajax" because it's the original form, and it's very common. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree (discussed at length some time ago), and done, except external links. --John Seward 13:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
disagree - AJAX is an acronym that stands for Asynchronous Javascript And XML. I think this article should be renamed. --Dandaman32 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ajax is not an acronym. Artw 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It is called Ajax in the article of J.J. Garrett and this is, I believe, the subject of the current article. Booles 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Booles, I assume you meant the article by J.J. Garrett introducing the term. --Rschmertz 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Artw, please explain your statement that "Ajax is not an acronym." --Rschmertz 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ajax is not an acronym. Artw 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is rebutted well here. --Rschmertz 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In particular, this was discussed here. Please give that a read-over, furrykef. It more-or-less persuaded me that referring to it as Ajax more closely meets Wikipedia standards. --Rschmertz 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to correct usage in WordPress Codex: Ajax, not AJAX. Viz.:

Ajax is not AJAX
"When Jesse James Garett had coined the term Ajax it was used in camel case. But due to its expansion coming into the limelight as “Asynchronous JavaScript and XML” (notice the uppercase of the words) people represented it as AJAX and not Ajax." [...]
"The reference of the usage is correctly attributed to the creator of the term itself i.e Jesse James Garette. He used Ajax (camel case). Wikipedia also uses in the same way, alongwith many big vendors, so it ought to be Ajax and not AJAX."
"Arun Gupta recalls his experience in making the changes at Sun Microsystems.
"Ajax is a popular term for past few months but is still being written incorrectly as “AJAX” (all capitals) instead of “Ajax” (camel case). I started using AJAX but then corrected myself and have been using Ajax since then."
Ajax Exposed from TechTracer.com

--BenTremblay (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. There are many sources calling it "Ajax" instead of AJAX. -- FatalError (t|c) 05:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources calling it "AJAX" instead of "Ajax" also. Please do not change every instance of "AJAX" to "Ajax", especially when the sites explicitly call it AJAX!--Wengier (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-Ajax

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)

It makes sense to me, however it could probably do with some editing for clarity. Artw 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

Pronunciation

Ay-Jacks or Ah-Jacks? or both?--sin-man 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
Matter of taste, but the hero is pronounced I-yux (no pun intended). Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The hero is also pronounced Ay-Jacks Ajax in Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary[1] Ajax in dictionary.com[2]. In fact, I haven't found any references for the other pronunciation in English. Razeetg 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AJAX based player

You can watch all the Reuters news on your Google homepage. An AJAX based Retuers player is available here -

http://padmanijain.googlepages.com/myexperiments.html

Same player is also available as Google gadget.

Edits by 87.203.160.112

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)

Javascript reliability

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).

Validity of bandwidth example?

The articles explains how Ajax can save bandwidth with an example:

With Ajax, the HTML of the page, e.g., a table structure with related TD and TR tags can be produced locally in the browser and not brought down with the first page of the document.

That seems like a poor example. Any data that's to be displayed in a table structure will be downloaded in XML format, which means that data is going to be marked up with some set of tags that organize it into multiple sets (i.e., rows) of related data values (i.e., columns). "TR" and "TD" at least have the benefit of being only two characters each. —Largo Plazo 13:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any non-trivial (or non-silly) example of a significant net savings in bandwidth. Indeed, the emphasis in Ajax for numerous, short, queries suggests that in addition to the usual unavoidable XML/HTML/JSON bloat, the HTTP request and response headers, and all the TCP setup-and-shutdown stuff, will add more than one might save.
If I may be permitted a brief rant: I agree in a very large degree with the comments from Robbyslaughter and Kondur found under "New Criticism: Fragility of Model" in the first archive of this talk page. Ajax is at best an abuse of existing standards (HTML was never intended to be used in the ways it is now; ditto JavaScript), will likely lead to the development of fragile systems (relatively speaking of course!), and certainly no way to save development time, bandwidth, etc. Web browsers are very poor platforms for large application development, and running RPC via a HTTP is ... well, it makes about as much sense as running RPC via SMTP. Sure, you can make it work, but, really, should you? An inkling into the looming issues can be found at a number of websites now. As an example, when reading http://ajaxexperience.techtarget.com/east/html/building.html, I was struck by convergence of the problems with Ajax development (and solutions) to "normal" application development. This raises the question to the real value of Ajax, perhaps even it's long term viability: eventually most people are going to realize that sugar coating a turd doesn't make the turd go away, and some new interactive-content standard will emerge. mdf 14:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

David W. Radcliffe

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) $$

To BankingBum: Whilst I agree that my post wasn't strictly about AJAX (Ajax or ajax, depending upon who you ask) in its present form, it was about the (pre-Ajax) development of alternative technologies to full-page reloads. You allowed other references to alternative technologies under the history section, so why not mine? This seems a bit one-sided to me, as I'm not from Microsoft or the USA. Maybe there should be a seperate section refering to (or at least mentioning) alternatives to Ajax, or an umbrella subject covering ALL web user experience enhancements. If not, where in Wikipedia should my post/article be located? 217.68.129.254 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

AJAX disambiguation

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)

Start cut & paste

Since you are so keen to not have a disambig at the start of Ajax (programming), I am converting AJAX into a redirect to Ajax not to Ajax (programming). -- SGBailey 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Reverting (see AJAX talk). I'm really not sure eho you think you;re helping out here. Artw 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I got into this because I typed "AJAX" into the search box and pressed "Go" and ended up at Ajax (programming) when I wanted stuff about greek warriors. You can't hijack a word for just one application and deny use of it for other (probably more common) uses elsewhere. Either AJAX must point to the Ajax disambiguation page or Ajax (programming) must have a link to the Ajax disambiguation page. It doesn't matter which, but you can't deny both options. If I don't get a convincing reasoned reponse to this in a few days I'll re-revert AJAX. Assuming you re-re-revert it then I suggest we get arbitartion involved. -- SGBailey 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

End cut & paste

Also relevant: talk:AJAX. Artw 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The reason I typed AJAX not ajax is that my caps lock key got turned on and I didn't bother retyrping it cos I expected it to work. This is a common screw up for me and I suspect for many others. I understand the argument that AJAX is often about programming and so I concur that it would be better for that to link to Ajax(programming), However I don't see what harm there is in putting a disambig link on the Ajax (programming) page, I only see benefits in doing this. I doesn't harm the programming article in any way. -- SGBailey 09:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If users typing the all caps verison of AJAX by accident really is a problem then we should keep the disambig at the top of the page, though I dislike it as it's messy and and we'd only be doing it to help users who have made what amounts to a typo. It's certainly preferable to redirecting AJAX to the disambig (see the relevant alk page for the reasoning on that).

But, again, I have real trouble beleiving that this is really all that much of a problem or that it happens very often. Artw 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume theres no way of putting in a conditional message? Artw 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying policy for Artw: Artw, WP:DISAMBIG states ... When a user searches for a particular term, he or she may have something else in mind than what actually appears. In this case, a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top. ...

the policy also states ... When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate or add a link to a disambiguation page. (emphasis not in original).

So far, the facts here seem to be as follows:

  • No one has claimed that there is zero risk of confusion over the title of this article
  • A "typo" may be one source of confusion, but is not necessarily the only potential confusion
  • The "typo" scenario did not even originate from misspelling but letter-case
  • The upper-case "AJAX" appears in more contexts than just the subject matter of this article (see e.g. [2])
  • The title-case "Ajax" appears in numerous contexts already identified in the disambiguation page
  • The rationale I dislike it as it's messy does not appear to have support under any relevant Wikipedia policy

Based on these facts, it seems quite clear that a disambiguation link at the top of the page is both appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia policy. Whether the "typo" scenario is common or frequent is not really relevant. Unless you wish to clarify or correct any point made here, a fair conclusion seems to be the disambiguation link should remain in the article. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Theres zero risk of this articles title being a source of confusion. I'm still kind of dubious as to whether AJAX is a potnential source of confusion - I'd have said no, but if others disagree that strongly then it's good enough for me. Artw 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Example sites

How is a list of some AJAX-enabled sites SPAM? maybe my list was a little long, i've added a shortened version. jez

Pronouceation

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

See above. --JohnAldis 13:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SEO Considerations

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)

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)
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)
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)

Examples

Are there any examples of the use of Ajax, to see it working online ?. --HybridBoy 06:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Using objects to record history?

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)

Pronunciation

It would be good to indicate how is Ajax pronounced in the beginning. Example: Ajax(pronounced .....) is a technique in... and so on. If it is possible, it could be with proper transcription symbols. Johny1407 17:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been considered in the past: I think the general consensus was that it's clutter and unnecessary. Artw 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is never any kind of clutter and is quite helpful since it helps people sort out whether it is pronounced A-J-A-X
or 'a-yaks it is a good and important for an introduction. For this article exactly I think a transcription is quite necessary.Johny1407 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it, as I wouldn't have pronounced it in either of those ways

About see also

"see also section should not include articles which are wikilinked in the article body."

Not sure. Macaldo 13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

84.226.158.62 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are other ways to make a http request with simple javascript instead of ajax
Actually I don't know where to enter something about the easy server side request, but I believe it's useful for many ppl, who don't know Ajax, but Javascript. Then they don't have to learn a new language without reason.
That's why I want to publish somewhere or set at least a link ;), since I'm not a big content writer and also I'm not used to work with these huge pages like wiki or something else.
Have you any suggestions where without getting trouble ?
( I've set the ip-talk page to my favorites for a while)
cheers Tümmel 89.217.129.36 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
HELLOOOO, is this talk dead ?
¿?¿ Tümmel ?¿?

89.217.54.201 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's easier to push a button and delete something instead of respone an answer, ins't it?
That's why I prefer not to become a wiki member.
good there's shift space now.
Citation Wikipedia: You will become very, very sad.
Tümmel

Don't understand this sentence...

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)

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)
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)

Sample Code

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)


- The javascript code given as an example downloads a page from the server and replaces the current document contents with it. It fails however to explain this leaving confusion. Also it only replaces the body of the current document meaning the pages it fetches are expected to contain only the body portion of the page. Writing the content directly instead of trough the DOM is faster but less compliant to W3 specs. One more thing would be that by using innerHTML to write the content most current browsers will not run any scripts contained in it.


Proposal of an example of Ajax syntax

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)

Do we need links to tutorials? I think they should be removed; they are irrelevant. Instead, there should be links to maybe articles that explain in detail what Ajax is, or its uses, etc. If people want a tutorial, they can use Google. -- FatalError (t|c) 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

These links have been approved for a while. Please, do not decide alone what has to be added or not.
But about Ajax:Getting started I am annoyed by "httpRequest.overrideMimeType('text/xml');" that is not standard (see XMLHttpRequest WD). Macaldo (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Links to blogs or personal websites should be avoided. That looks like a personal website to me. Also, it does not contribute to the article. -- FatalError (t|c) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
They have been approved, and it you look at the questions on this page, they are useful. The goal of the article is to explain what is Ajax, no need for links on articles that explain Ajax. But the goal of a tutorial is to explain how to use Ajax, with some source code, and this kind of material is not hosted by Wikipedia, it must be linked according to the guidelines. Look at other similar articles.
"Personal_web_page are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature." . Macaldo (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. I didn't think about it that way. Sorry for pouncing on you like that. And I didn't really look at the website when I called it personal, I realized I was wrong after I posted my comment. -- FatalError 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Can someone please explain to me how this image contributes to the article in any way? Until then I'm removing it because there is no point in having it. -- FatalError 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

╚☺╝ FatalError: There is not point if you don't get it, but you stated that you did, and you took it very hilariously, and so I am glad. The question is no if it were pertaining to the "cleanser". In fact it has nothing to do with it at all. It is pertaining to the quality that together these set of technologies offer to the web developer. They make the, RIA, Rich Internet Application Web developing process, an agile as "quasi-indestructible" life-cycle that not only enhance the ability of the User-Interface-Experience (UIE), but also improve the " executing cycles" at the UIC (User Interface Computing) level.
► Now over if it is an acronym or anything else, it does not really matter, at this moment is still highly debatable as many publishing houses and editors are not aligned about it as yet. However, one could inspect how the word has been originated, not only by the first one that used it or coined if not by the adoption in the field, made today of practitioners, experts, developers et al.

Finally, I admire your devotion and how you are invested in this subject, I am not a devotee in nothing but I embrace Wikipedia as a whole. So it is fine with me as you might interpret either, the image, the etymology of the word or anything else. The important thing is that AJAX or Ajax is basically based on "Openness", therefore so many people may effectively apply it to enhance the UIE in their projects. Now,I will not comeback to the page, for one year, time in which mine, yours and others contributions will be consolidated. My first intention was achieved, to point to the fact that the name as other issues about AJAX or Ajax are not set in stone, at least not entirely for the reasons that have been exchanged as yet in this page, but the article is strong and has its own merit as well. Continue the good work. See you in a year or so. Sincerely, "-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" (talk)

AJAX Testing

This section should talk about AJAX testing. Please contribute your views.

Pratheepraj (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ajax testing? What do you mean? -- FatalError 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Pratheepraj: Nobody is obliged to contribute. Macaldo (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comet is an Ajax design pattern?

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)

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)
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)
Please don't delete the link to reverse Ajax and replace it with a link to the Comet article [3]. 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)

Good article reassessment?

Hi, in a recent discussion it was said [4] 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)

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)
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)
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)

Plagiarism

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) Oh, look at that, it looks like the "Advantages" section was plagiarized from the same website, here. — FatalError 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that website copied the text from here. I feel like an idiot. — FatalError 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

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 {{refimprove}} 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)

Brilliantly done, someone really needed to take the axe to this. Great work! bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
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)

Removed reference

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Article dramatically reduced

I have just discovered the article is now 1/5 its original size! And a lot of "references" has been added that link to the content that was previously in the article. Is it a new policy to move the content of Wikipedia to external websites and link them? Macaldo (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read my previous comment, I stated that the reason I removed so much content is because most of it was original research that has been unsourced for over a year. Don't accuse me of faking the sources, all I did was do some research on the topic, and I linked to all the reliable sources that applied. Half the sources I found were not previously in the article. And most of the content needed to be rewritten as well, because it was unclear; some of it didn't even pertain to Ajax. The only section that could possibly be re-added is the "Accessibility" section, but only with proper sources, because to me most of it looked like original research, and the article made it unclear how it pertained specifically to Ajax. If you have a source or two, please, feel free to put the information back in! — FatalError 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the criticism about the article that was unreadable while it has been cited as good article in other times. But for the references, I cannot agree. If someone says that Ajax has such feature and I can verify that it has effectively such feature, I wonder why we need for a reference on who has said that.
Apart that, I'll try to retrieve older snapshoots of the article to get essential content that has be destroyed over the time and that I could restore. Macaldo (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the point of references! I wonder if you've ever read WP:V? Readers need to be able to verify that the information is true at a glance without doing any testing. Not everyone has Firebug installed, and not everyone knows how to do such tests, so a reference is needed to show the reader that this information is indeed true. Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth." You don't seem to understand that, as the comment on your talk page suggests. Ideally every piece of information in an article should be cited, no matter how obvious it is to experts on the subject. Feel free to do whatever it is you're planning to do with the older versions of the article, but any information without citations is original research, and myself and other editors will be free to remove it if no source is found. — FatalError 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added the section "What is Ajax" because it was curious the article does not even say what it is!!! For the reference it is the only one that can not be disputed! About your sentence "Ideally every piece of information in an article should be cited, no matter how obvious it is to experts on the subject." I need for confirmation from other contributors. Each contributor should have SeoQuake installed rather than Firebug to judge the notability of a reference. Macaldo (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's your confirmation: Our policy on verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (emphasis mine). On that note, I've reverted your new section. The article does fairly clearly say what Ajax is - "Ajax (asynchronous JavaScript and XML), or AJAX, is a group of interrelated web development techniques used for creating interactive web applications." If you want to write a "Technologies" section explaining what technologies could be used in an Ajax implementation then go right ahead, but as it stands some of the other references directly contradict what you added.
As an aside, "notability of sources" (I assume you mean reliability of sources) is not judged by hits on Google - see our guidelines on notability and reliability of sources. Note that the notability of a source is not hugely relevant - it is the notability of the topic, and the reliability of the source that determines our coverage of it. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I cite "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors". I just wonder why these sources are reliable. Do not misinterpret my post, please, I am speaking of notability: how many serious webmasters have linked these source? Is it not what is called "reputation"? Macaldo (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

sigh... Shall I go through each of the links?

I really don't think I needed to waste my time doing that, but since you can't seem to understand Wikipedia's policies, there they are, all laid out for you. — FatalError 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the policy for a while and I try to explain you that references are here to prove something. I you just cite pages that you have found with Google, that does not prove anything. You have even linked pages that were copied from the article, as stated before in "plagiarism"! Macaldo (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't link to those articles, I'm not stupid. And I am proving something, I'm verifying the information in the article. For example, look at the "responsiveness" item in the Advantages section. If I was new to Ajax and I was reading that, I would want to know for sure that it's true before using it on my own website or whatever. I'd want to make sure that Ajax-handled requests really happen instantly. Thus, there is a reference to prove it so the user knows for sure that it's true and isn't mislead into believing original research. It's all about trust. References like that give the user a reason to trust the article and not assume that it's OR, because he/she can verify that the information is indeed true. Of course, things like the "script/stylesheet" advantage don't necessarily need a source, since they are fairly obvious, but that doesn't mean we can't have one in there. It doesn't hurt to have as many sources as possible. On a side note, I didn't use Google. :P — FatalError 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncited source

Boulevardier: This "uncited source" comes from the Article of J.J. Garrett who has created the name Ajax, to which this article is dedicated. I wonder if you have even read the article. If it conflicts with the other sources, then remove these sources. Macaldo (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section because, like Boulevardier said, all that information is in the first paragraph. I don't see why we need a second section to describe it; it's completely redundant. Also, just because Garrett coined the term doesn't mean he knows everything about the technologies used and their pros and cons, which is why we have to use other sources. This article isn't based completely on what Garrett says. I don't see what your problem is; I took an article that was in horrible shape, rewrote it, cited it, and now you're telling me that my edits were BS. I don't care if you have some sort of emotional connection to earlier versions of the article (maybe you wrote them?), but I'm asking you to put that aside and cooperate, because you're not helping the article at all by shooting down any improvements we're trying to make. — FatalError 18:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph is false. Ajax uses only XHR otherwise it is not Ajax.
It is also uncomplete, Ajax is more than XHR and JavaScript. See the article of Garrett. This article until now was describing what Garrett named Ajax. Other article are welcomed to describe other technologies.
"I took an article that was in horrible shape". Yes, I agree.
"rewrote it" No, essential part are now missing, this is why I had added "What is Ajax". A such section is absolutely required. I you do not like my contrib (it is very simple), you can write yours. But I wonder why I lose my time here if no other contributors are interested by this page. Macaldo (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem here lies in our definition of Ajax. You're holding that we must stick by Garrett's definition (namely that it combines XHR, JS, XML, etc.), whereas we're trying to say that the definition of Ajax has expanded since then. The fact of the matter is that since the publication of Garrett's article, other notable people in the community have expanded this definition to be a descriptor of the behaviour of a web application. Today, people aren't particularly interested in whether an application uses XHR or an iframe or some other yet-to-be-known technology; what matters is the way in which it behaves.
I have to suggest again that the best way of dealing with this is to write a "Technologies" section outlining technologies that can be used in an Ajax application. I think I might take a stab at this right now, actually. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took an attempt at it. I'm not too happy with the bullet point style, but I think I got the point across. Some editing would be appreciated. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Although "without interfering with the display and behaviour of an existing page" is already used in the first paragraph, so it seems a little repetitive. But other than that, looks good. — FatalError 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

VBScript

VBScript is cited as an alternative to JavaScript in Ajax with a reference. I cite this reference: "VBScript also offers the same capabilities for dynamic updates as well — albeit tied to IE only".
This is no one serious webmaster that want to build web pages for IE only (Firefox is used by 45% of net surfers in some countries). Consequently, VBScript is not an alternative to JavaScript. This is just on example of what I do not like in the new article. Each addition should be discussed (and each removal too). Macaldo (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Then find a good cite that says VBScript is a poor alternative and add something like "Other languages such as VBScript are also capable of the required functionality, although they do not offer the same level of compatibility with modern browsers" to the bullet point. You need to remember that we don't take a position on what qualifies as a "good" technique - we simply report what reputable sources say can be done. In this case, reputable sources have said that VBScript is an alternative and so that's what we've said. I'm positive there are sources out there that say VBScript is a poor alternative, and once you've found those they should be included in the article as well. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not an alternative for me who is using Firefox. Another point (I have not studied the whole article, just read some sentences) is the IFrame article. You have linked an article with weird drawing that continuously makes reference to a "XMLHttpRequest Call" page and it is a broken link. I wonder how a such article could be a reference. Apart that, IFrame is pure hacking, and apparently the author only knows Internet Explorer. Ajax is a standard, a set of cross-browser technologies, you should not intermix with it proprietary technologies or hacking techniques. Macaldo (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read what he just said? "You need to remember that we don't take a position on what qualifies as a 'good' technique." Just because it's a hack doesn't mean we shouldn't include it in the article. It's another method of doing asynchronous requests to the server. "This is just on example of what I do not like in the new article." Unfortunately, this isn't your article, so you not liking it doesn't mean anything. Please, instead of pointing out the little details that you don't like, how about adding things to improve the article? On a side note, I'm removing the reference to Ajax Patters because it is a wiki, and wikis are not reliable sources. — FatalError 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Good call, I didn't actually read the old cites to find something about iframes. The new cite is much better. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"I do not like it" means that I am sure it is a bad reference. You have removed the link, it is perfect.
I suggest to create two sections: "Evolutions of Ajax" to clearly distinguish Ajax as defined by Garrett, and new addition (XDomainRequest for example). And "Alternatives to Ajax" that could link to the IFrame page, this also help to avoid confusion. As it is not my article, I prefer to have advice from other contributors before to do it. Macaldo (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ajax is the concept of having responsive web applications, so how can you have "Alternatives to Ajax"? There are no alternatives, Ajax is a concept, not a product. I think an Evolutions section would be fine, though. It would go well with the article right after the History section. — FatalError 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe instead of Evolutions, make a Controversies section? It seems that many sources disagree with what Ajax really is, e.g. whether it must use the XHR object, whether it must use XML, etc. But on the other hand, that conflicts with the Technologies section, so I don't know. What do you guys think? — FatalError 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it. But before to do it, I want more advices from several users about its content, I want not waste my time to write a section that will be deleted or rewritten. Macaldo (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ajax in Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary
  2. ^ Ajax in dictionary.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ajax_(programming)/Archive_3&oldid=1136503278"