Talk:Ajax (programming)

AJAX or Ajax?

I have observed that recently Ajax was changed to AJAX.

What is correct? And why?

Mortense (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed here four years ago, and "Ajax" was voted for. There's one argument for calling it Ajax since that was the capitalization the term's inventor used. Then again, the company states on the very same page: "Neither the Ajax name nor the approach are proprietary". [1]. (And in the title of the page they call it "ajax" too..) So it's not a trademarked brand name like iPod for example -- it's merely a term for a concept. I think standard English and Wikipedia conventions on acronyms should prevail, unless we decide that because the letters are pronounceable as a single word, and due to the term's commonality, that it should stop being used as an acronym, like laser. In that case I'd favor calling it merely "ajax". Either AJAX or ajax would make sense, depending on how progressive we're being, but not "Ajax" -- it's not a proper noun. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else want to weigh in? • Anakin ^(talk) 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a shortcut and not an acronym and a word created and coined by J.J. Garrett, as "Ajax". But Microsoft likes to write "AJAX". Microsoft has invented XMLHTTP (now XMLHttpRequest), but not the Ajax term, and so they should not have any right to change the word! Macaldo (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's Ajax, not AJAX. If you want to create a Wikipedia page to describe a word coined by someone, adhere to the original case and spelling, even if you don't like it. Deciding to edit the article to be AJAX instead of Ajax is like changing all references of Perl to be PERL or Pearl. 69.112.172.59 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is different to a name like Perl. They would be brand names or trademarks, but this article isn't about one particular product or brand; it's about the concept/technique. That technique also existed long before it had this name — it's merely a convenience for us that we can now refer to it with just four letters instead of always explicitly explaining "asynchronous web page requests using JavaScript". Even if the original usage was intended to be a trademark and always refer to the specific definition the term's coiner gave it, its usage might fall under the category of genericized trademark, so I'd still favor either of the all-same-case spellings instead of "Ajax". Would you spell "Trampoline" with the capital T? Again, since this article is largely about the concept/technique, and not the name, all the more reason to adhere to standard English spelling rules, as either a word (ajax) or acronym (AJAX). In fact, if "Ajax" is a form of brand/trademark and thus should always be capitalized according to the rules of the coiner, then we have no business using it to title this article about the generic programming concept at all. It would be like titling "vacuum cleaner" as "Hoover". (This paragraph is very rambling; sorry; I believe it though.) • Anakin ^(talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This was already voted on, and it's Ajax. You should never take it upon yourself to go against the community, and someone should not have to get a trademark in order to prevent such a mistake on Wikipedia. If O'Reilly did not have a trademark on Web 2.0 for their conference, would you be editing the Web 2.0 article to be web 2.0 throughout? I'm not going to spend my time debating this, just because someone is wrong on the Internet, but this issue has already been settled, and there was really no reason to bring it up again. Shiflett (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A good blog post on the matter is here: [[2]]. Should the page be changed back from AJAX to Ajax? - SeanR (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks like someone just did a search-and-replace to change everything to AJAX; this has led to incorrectly referencing citations. I have amended the references but not yet changed the use of the term throughout the entire page. - SeanR (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the page. The history seems to show that it was already made. Possibly my edits was made on a cached page? @Anakin: Ajax is not a technique, it is actually a concept and a set of techniques. As an acronym, it would not be suitable, because XML is not necessarily involved in Ajax, it may be replaced by other formats. Macaldo (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived

I archived a bunch of old conversation. Lot 49a^talk 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More code always means more potential loopholes

"Ajax opens up another attack vector for malicious code that web developers might not fully test for."

While technically true, I am not sure that it appropriately conveys information. It gives the impression that Ajax is somehow specifically insecure which is not really true. (please note that I said "gives the impression that" and not "says that") It's just that more code and more communication means more opportunities for bug and security vulnerability. I am going to modify this. Let me know if you feel my contribution is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrometheeFeu (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. However, reading it makes me think that exactly the same point can be made regarding usability and accessibility of Ajax apps, as well as this one on security. --Nigelj (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is rather vague. What are there potential loopholes? Starting to live means that you have more chances to die. Macaldo (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"loopholes" - if i understand what is supposed to be meant by this: security vulnerabilities - if they exist at a higher level, also exist at every deeper level. likewise, if they do NOT exist at a deeper level, they cannot exist at any higher level. e.g. If there is a security vulnerability in AJAX, then there is one in java. if there is not one in java, then there is not one in AJAX. put more abstractly, higher programming levels are complete subsets of deeper levels, by definition. anything possible in them must also be possible in their supersets, by definition. and everything not in them cannot be in the subsets. by definition of sets. Kevin Baas^talk 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems there - Ajax uses JavaScript, not Java (programming language), and it is perfectly possible for any developer to create whole new security vulnerabilities by badly using an inherently secure programming language or technology. It's true that we don't have a list of what they might be here, though. Cross-site scripting or Man-in-the-middle attack opportunities? Certainly new Denial-of-service attacks. I don't know, I haven't researched it recently. --Nigelj (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted stupid sentence

"Because Ajax is used for very dynamic web content, Ajax is often closely used with several server technologies. Common are JavaServerPages, LAMP and ASP. These technologies permit quick access to the information demanded in an interactive Ajax driven page."

This is why the sentence is stupid:

Reads like: "Because Gas is used for Cars, Gas is often closely used with several transportation technologies. Common are Tractors, Trucks and Busses. These vehicles permit quick access to the Internal Combustion Engines demanded in an interactive Gas driven vehicle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.185.240 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Useless sentence, actually ;) Macaldo (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.75.252.228 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so I don't die dumb...

What exactly this sentence do in the History section of the article?

"Ajax is Developed by RONSON In 1989."

Maybe I'm the idiot, but as far as I remember the DOM didn't even exist back in 1989 so then AJAX couldn't exist either.