Comments on: Is AJAX Cross-Browser?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:51:47 +0000

By: chumbo

chumbo — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:40:44 +0000

Cross-browser? It doesn’t work on my WebTV.

Seriously, I love table-based layouts and the blink tag.

By: devkungfoo » AJAX Responsibly :: All things web

devkungfoo » AJAX Responsibly :: All things web — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:17:10 +0000

[…] Is AJAX Cross-Browser? […]

By: bigduke

bigduke — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:19:09 +0000

Why can’t people just find more sensible names for apps that are ajax look-alike’s and end all such debate?

Why make an acronym a basis for branding? This is like those php apps’ names … phpThis and phpThat ugh!

By: BerislavLopac

BerislavLopac — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:50:29 +0000

To my mind the important point about AJAX is the A not the X—would you complain if the Javascript was replaced with VBScript?

Actually, all elements of the “ajax” acronym can be replaced with something else without changing the essence of the concept — asynchronous with synchronous, Javascript with VBScript (or anything else registered through Windows Scripting Host, for example), and XML with JSON, YAML or any other format. This is precisely why “remote scripting” is a much better term then “ajax”.

By: omnicity

omnicity — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:44:59 +0000

Maybe I am missing the point, but to my mind, AJAX is essentially Just Another Vague Acronym. Like Java, and HTML, both of which are very well-defined, what is created with the under-lying technology has little to do with the framework itself. HTML can produce a beautiful web page, or a horrible web-app, while remaining 100% compliant with the standard. Note that AJAX has the same standing as LAMP, where it is agreed that the final P can stand for either PHP PERL or Python, or even something more esoteric like Ruby. To my mind the important point about AJAX is the A not the X - would you complain if the Javascript was replaced with VBScript? (Assuming anyone was daft enough to try that!)

By: Matthew Magain

Matthew Magain — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:21:28 +0000

Am I missing something obvious here?

Nope. It’s poop alright.

By: skinjester

skinjester — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:36:09 +0000

in looking at AskAlexia.com - The Web 2.0 Search Engine, maybe I’m missing the point? OK, it seems to be state-based rather than page-based, and there is some pleasant mouse-over hiliting going on, but without intending to sound snarky, so what?

I’m not seeing any value provided that isn’t already provided by, uh… Web 1.0 search engines. Granted this is in beta, but I would have expected to see additional functionality such as a “bin” containing previously selected search results, or maybe a “bin” to which I could drag & drop search results for future reference. Or even Google style prepopulated lookup up of common search terms based on my own data entry…

Am I missing something obvious here?

By: Matthew Magain

Matthew Magain — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:29:34 +0000

Even in the best browsers, when used in combination with assistive technology AJAX is usually not accessible, even when it does exactly what the developer intended. Does that make it cross-browser compatible?

If the developer makes the app degrade gracefully or provides alternate content (e.g. gmail), yes.

I don’t think so, and that makes it rather illogical complaining about someone using the XUL standard (yes, it is a standard, just one that MS doesn’t support).

You’re missing the point. No-one’s complaining about the use of XUL. It’s the naming of the app. And no, it’s not a standard. There’s no W3C XUL working group. Neither is XMLHttp, but it’s not a browser-specific technology, even if support varies between browsers.

By: Cronweb

Cronweb — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:05:28 +0000

The design of the ajaxwrite website needs some work