On 00:20 Sun 27 Feb , James Britt wrote: > Jamis Buck wrote: > > > >Innapropriate or not, it's certainly easier to talk about "Ajax" than > >"that technique that uses XMLHttpRequest to send asynchronous requests > >to the server via Javascript without having to reload the page." > >That's the point, I think--not that something new has been discovered, > >but that a label has been given to that thing to make it easier to > >discuss. I'd even go so far as to posit that the reason Ajax has taken > >so long to really start gaining attention is because there's not been > >an easy way to talk about it. > > > >Think about design patterns. Most people agree that these are good > >things. However, most of these patterns are not new--it's just that > >they've recently been given names to facilitate discussion about them. > > > >When you give something a name, you can define and then hide an entire > >host of assumptions behind it. That's where the value comes from. > > That's also were the problems come in, too. In the case of design > patterns, many people have the habit of using the short-hand name as a > stand-in for real understanding. Different people may have different > takes on the Foo pattern, but they don't realize they are talking past > each other because they both assume the other people use the term the > same way as they do. I agree. The name is not a replacement for real understanding, but no matter *what* you call it, people can (and will) misunderstand you. It's just the ambiguous nature of natural language. > "Ajax" carries an important assumption: XML. But, despite the name, > XMLHttpRequest can send any text you like. It is often more appropriate > to use, say JSON, or unformatted text. While some might argue that the > term is meant to encompass more than just the use of XML, the very name > tends to to encourage people to make what could be suboptimal choices, > choices that that would be better served by thinking about each of the > technologies involved. I disgree that the term "Ajax" assumes XML. True, the acronym that it was formed from includes XML, but the name itself is less XML-specific than XMLHTTPRequest--the other term people use to describe this technology. True, Mr. Garrett's particular definition ties Ajax to XML. In that, I take issue with his article. But the fact that he's given the technique a simple, easy-to-remember (and easy to pronounce!) name is a huge step forward, IMO. I frankly don't care what term people use, as long as they define it and it becomes widely used. Without a good definition, people will (as you said) talk past each other. Without wide use, no one will know what you are talking about. "Ajax" is nice because it is well-defined, and it is gaining wider usage. It is unfortunate--but not insurmountable--that Mr. Garrett's definition includes XML. If enough people write about it and use it in non-XML contexts, the term can eventually come to mean even non-XML usages of the technology. - Jamis -- Jamis Buck jamis_buck / byu.edu http://jamis.jamisbuck.org ------------------------------ "I am Victor of Borge. You will be assimil-nine-ed."