I dont see how it makes it that much easier. AJAX is JavaScript, basically a style. Stands for Asynchronous JavaScript And Xml.
I would go for the AJAX... Iframes suck ***. The expandable iframes work using JS
Printable View
I dont see how it makes it that much easier. AJAX is JavaScript, basically a style. Stands for Asynchronous JavaScript And Xml.
I would go for the AJAX... Iframes suck ***. The expandable iframes work using JS
Yeah but yes it does. So please don't correct me with wrong info.
o... Wikipedia is wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)
o... Mozilla is wrong
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs...etting_Started
Anyway <3
I also read the same article (or similiar, but same point), and just decided to find proof of it.
Take from the first line in "History" in Ajax's article.
Citation #2, is..Quote:
The first use of the term in public was by Jesse James Garrett in February 2005[1]. Garrett thought of the term when he realised the need for a shorthand term to represent the suite of technologies he was proposing to a client[2].
On the very first line of the article it says Ajax is shorthand for asynchronous javascript & xml.
Learn the god damn difference between the two terms, before you start making sarcastic replies.
Anyway, AJAX > iFrames. I care about coding XHTML 1.1 (and 2.0 when it's 'released'/ready). End of.
Ajax is a technique which uses javascript and xml, most commonly cented about xmlhttp requests to my knowlage.
Also iframes, when used right can be a decent feature. But as always, when used wrong, can be horrible. The sames true of javascript, id much rather see a webpage with a working iframe, than a javascript navigation that doesnt actualy function o.0