Robert Walker wrote: > Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: >> Ajax (specifically not an acronym according to its creator, although it >> really is one) has a very clear meaning -- asynchronous JavaScript >> server requests that don't require a page reload. The term is useful >> and I see no reason to drop it -- if it's used in its proper sense. >> This wasn't it. :) > > Asynchronous JavaScript And XML (AJAX). So if you don't send XML in the > asynchronous request is it still AJAX?
Yes. The XML part is usually a misnomer, but the rest of the term is quite apt. > I still find this a confusing > term for nothing more than background remote request. "Nothing more than"? This was a fundamental change to the structure of Web apps. > Wether is has a > clear meaning or not, it still gets misused a lot rendering the term > near worthless. A lot of terms get misused. That doesn't make them worthless when used properly. If you want worthless terms, go pick on "Web 2.0"... :) Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
