Talk:Ajax (web technology)

Article overbroad

I have to object to this article, just as with AJAX frameworks. I think that the use of the word "AJAX" is over-broad, and we should try hard to restrict it, perhaps even avoid it. It's become a marketing buzzword. It refers to techniques where one updates part of a page with content without updating the whole page. Which is fine, it's part of developing web applications. I think we should do as following:

• have a page on practices in web application development, perhaps something like web applications
• have a page on JavaScript, which links to pages on XMLHttpRequest and Ajax
• have a page on JavaScript frameworks, not "AJAX frameworks"
• not call Ruby on Rails and similar server-side technologies "AJAX frameworks" - they aren't. You can build applications with Rails and other similar back-end frameworks that don't use Ajax or JavaScript, and indeed, it's probably a good idea to mentally separate out building the application from adding the Ajax - it should be the last thing one adds, following the principle of unobtrusive JavaScript (graceful degradation/progressive enhancement) for accessibility and browser compatibility
• stick closely to the technical component. For instance, in the article as it currently reads, it describes Ajax as "an emerging web technology that enhances the end users' web browsing experience". XMLHttpRequest (and JavaScript more generally) can enhance the experience of web users, but it can also make it worse.

I think we need to do some fairly fundamental butchering of this set of articles to make them even close to approval quality. --Tom Morris 18:17, 10 August 2008 (CDT)

Tom, thanks for the comments. In response, I agree that we need to narrow the definition of Ajax, not to "changing part of a page with Javascript" but more specifically to, "using an XMLHTTPRequest object to fetch information from a server in the background in order to update a part of a page with Javascript". Or something. Incidentally before we "butcher" this rather new article, please note that several students are rushing against a deadline to pack in as much as they can by next Sunday midnight (and will be "graded" for their effort up to that point). And certainly, we can all continue to evolve the article further thereafter, hopefully satisfying your concerns. Thanks for devoting attention to it.Pat Palmer 09:28, 12 August 2008 (CDT)

Yep, I've been holding off any significant butchering to give the Eduzendiums a chance to improve it. Once the Eduzendium deadline is over, I'm going to have a go at significantly reworking it. --Tom Morris 13:53, 12 August 2008 (CDT)

Please do not "butcher" this article without first justifying to me and the community of editors in Computers why there is a need to do so. I welcome your continuing comments on and authoring of it, but I don't particularly welcome what seems like a threat to replace the whole thing with a creation of your own without significant further discussion.Pat Palmer 17:50, 12 August 2008 (CDT)