Considering that the other runtime is SWF, HTML5 seems more correct to me. Ajax is a paradigm, not a technology itself. Actually SWF-compiled-apps can be considered Ajax apps. Definitely HTML5 for me!
2010/5/29 Sarah Allen <[email protected]> > I vote for HTML5 > > On May 29, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Raju Bitter wrote: > > And here's the link to John's blog post: > http://my-thoughts-exactly.wetmachine.com/content/smashwords-ipad-doctorow-zeldman-further-bumbling-self-publishing-adventures > > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Raju Bitter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Have you ever thought about renaming the "DHTML" button to Ajax, or even >> better: HTML5? >> >> Technically OpenLaszlo already supports some HTML5 features, so you could >> say it's "HTML5 enabled", or whatever you want to call it. It's just that >> people don't have any idea what DHTML is. Just check this comment in John >> Sundman's blog: >> >>> I thought Laszlo compiled to Flash, or am I misinformed? I see that it >>> supports DHTML too-also, but since I don’t know what DHTML actually means, >>> that says to me it’s not a Big Deal. I’m probably wrong. Explain why! >> >> >> I've heard it over and over in the past years that people are saying: Why >> do you call Ajax support "DHTML"? Just check the Wikipedia article on DHTML: >> >>> The term "DHTML" has fallen out of use in recent years, as DHTML scripts >>> often tended to not work well between various web browsers. DHTML may now be >>> referred to as unobtrusive >>> JavaScript<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtrusive_JavaScript>coding >>> (DOM Scripting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOM_Scripting>), in an >>> effort to place an emphasis on agreed-upon best practices while allowing >>> similar effects in an accessible, standards-compliant >>> way<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Enhancement> >>> . >> >> Some disadvantages of DHTML are that it is difficult to develop and >>> debug <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debug> due to varying degrees of >>> support among web browsers of the technologies involved, and that the >>> variety of screen sizes means the end look can only be fine-tuned on a >>> limited number of browser and screen-size combinations. Development for >>> relatively recent browsers, such as Internet Explorer >>> 5.0+<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_5> >>> , Mozilla Firefox <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox>2.0+, and >>> Opera<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_%28web_browser%29> 7.0+, >>> is aided by a shared Document Object Model. Basic DHTML support was >>> introduced with Internet Explorer >>> 4.0<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_4.0>, >>> although there was a basic dynamic system with Netscape Navigator >>> 4.0<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator> >>> . >> >> >> DHTML just sounds so old-school, before RIA and Ajax, just out-dated. >> Wonder how many people would google for "DHTML RIA" instead of "HTML5 RIA"? >> And check Google trends (or attached screenshots): >> http://www.google.com/trends?q=html5%2Cajax%2Cdhtml%2Cria >> >> And another point is: in high-level management presentations people will >> much more likely know the term Ajax or HTML5 than the term DHTML. I've met >> enough people that don't have any clear understanding what DHTML means, but >> no-one ever told me that it's a good name for the capabilities. >> >> Raju >> > > > -- Quirino Zagarese PhD Student - Engineering Department - Università degli Studi del Sannio Italian OpenLaszlo Community - www.laszloitalia.org EU4RIA: Laszlo+Java, easily - eu4ria.googlecode.com
