From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2005-02-27T02:11:00+09:00
Subject: Re: AJAX? Why not AJYL?  (Re: [OT] Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications)

Jamis Buck wrote:
> On 00:20 Sun 27 Feb     , James Britt wrote:
> 
>>"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.

I think this just proves my point.  My understanding of 'Ajax' is the 
use of a JavaScript client-request object to pass around XML, with the 
client using XSLT to transform it to more useful data.

If it isn't XML, it isn't Ajax.

I'm unfamiliar with people using "XMLHTTPRequest" to refer to a 
technique or technology per se , but as simply the main object involved.

Of course, *that* name is a misnomer as well, but 'Ajax' just compounds 
the problem.


James