Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Nothing but a bunch of high-level nonsense. It reads like a marketing brochure.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I wouldn't be that cruel but there are already plenty of AJAX resources available online. JavaWorld would only do better to add value than generate another pointer to another pointer..
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I think you may have missed the point of the article, to me it seems like a good overview and resource point for developers getting into in AJAX development for JavaWorld readers. There are other articles like it, but it I think every publication has the right to publish an overview they like. So I'm not sure if I agree with your "nonsense" comment, are there any points in particular you think are nonsense? If you read several newspapers, which I'm sure you do, you'll notice that from time to time two different newspapers may cover the same subject...and the articles are similar.
There are many more niche AJAX portals, news sources and blogs out there I'd recommend you take a lot at for specific and detailed AJAX information:
- Ajaxian
- AJaXInfo
- AJaX Patterns
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
As far as I was aware, the full expansion of the AJAX acronym is "Asynchronous JavaScript *And* XML", not "...*with* XML". After all, where do you think the second "A" comes from? This is certainly the only time I've ever seen it referenced this way.
Here's the link to the original Adaptive Path article that coined the term:
http://adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php
And here's the exact quote from that artice:
"The name is shorthand for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML, and it represents a fundamental shift in whats possible on the Web."
Anal? Pedantic? Yes. But really, if you can't even get the name right ...
|
DaveJ
stranger
Reged: 10/19/05
Posts: 1
|
|
As you say, in the Adaptive Path article the term used is "Asynchronous JavaScript + XML" so if you want to be picky the acronym should be AJ+X. If you look up "+" on dictionary.com you will see the following definition:
- Added to; along with
The second definition there uses that "with" word that I used. Or again if you want to be anal about it then the acronym should maybe be AJAWX or AJATX. The fact that Jesse James chose to use the "+" makes the entire statement ambiguous and therefore I think that using any connecting word that implies the idea associated with "+" is acceptable. Furthermore, Java World edited the article to be AJAX and not AJaX as I generally refer to it as; the second "a" should be lower lower case since it cannot mean "+" so it only makes sense that it is part of *Ja*vaScript.
So I am not sure that there is a right way to say it or spell the acronym. In fact, Jesse James even wrote it as "Ajax" which does not really imply any sort of acronym I guess...
|
Anonamoose
Unregistered
|
|
wow, i always thought that ajax meant "asynchronous javascript and xml", and so the second a was for the "and"...does that mean i don't know anything about ajax either? wow, how embarassed am i? i guess we must have just focused on different parts of the essay. glad you got so much more out of it than i did.
Anal? Pedantic? Yes. But if that's the biggest criticism you have of this article, if that's the flaw that you found, then I'd say that's actually one hell of a compliment to the author.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Yes, but is it pronounced "ess-cue-el" or "sequel"? 
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
The correct answer is:
Who Gives a [censored]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
Nothing but a bunch of high-level nonsense. It reads like a marketing brochure.
not bad 
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
