Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
Is all the discussion of AJAX here missing the point slightly?
It depends on how you define Ajax. Ajax is now often used to mean "Web
2.0 style websites, based primarily on HTML/CSS/Javascript" as opposed
to just Asynchronous Javascript and XML. Especially as some "AJAX" based
site are often turning to JSON instead of XML for data transport and for
a lot of sites there's just not that much in the way of Asynchronous
calls. Since it's a lot easier to say AJAX than it is to say DHTML, or
HTML/CSS/Javascript and all the terms are related anyway the term Ajax
now has more than it's original meaning.
Which sounds better:
"We could use HTML/CSS/Synchronous Javascript/JSON instead of Flash"
"We could use Ajax instead of Flash"
While the first might be technically more correct, the second is easier
to say, and you still get the gist of what sort of site you're developing.
Scot
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
