Ken, any reason you wouldn't just generate JavaScript to be eval'd on the client side?
I would think that would actually be more efficient, despite the use of eval(). It also saves you from having to re-implement more JavaScript language features, should you choose to expand your dynamic capabilities. Also, (and the likelihood of this may be a little far-fetched), it insulates you against having your client side code misinterpret control character sequences embedded in the text. Thanks for indulging my curiosities. -Nate > Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:02:57 -0500 > From: Kenneth Downs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [nyphp-talk] So who's using Ajax anway? > To: NYPHP Talk <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > David Mintz wrote: >> For you guys, does the X in AJAX really stand for XML? Or are you >> sending >> back finished HTML? >> > Finished HTML. > > On the PHP side we send back a big string, composed of object IDs and > innerHTML values. Delimiters are pipe and a pipe-star-pipe, like the > following: > > object_1|<span class="notice">Everything worked great!</span> > |-| > object_2|<table><tr>..... > |-| > object_3|<select><option>.... > > The browser side cuts it up and assigns the innerHTML. > > We can also send alerts back for debugging, like this: > > echo|This text will appear in an alert > > and finally if there is no pipe symbol in the return, the js assumes > something is very wrong and displays the HTML in an alert. It does > the > same thing if the named object does not exist. _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
