REBOL3 - AJAX (Web Development Using AJAX [web-public])

Return to Index Page
Most recent messages (300 max) are listed first.

193Henrikgreat... another way to eat tons of CPU with "simple" demos. :-)31-Jan-09 10:38
192Pekrwhat is iecanvas? plain html?31-Jan-09 10:34
191OldesBut maybe the XAMLs above are so pure because Silvelight has big problems with compatibily between its versions.31-Jan-09 0:45
190OldesWith Silverlight is a problem,that maybe it may be used for simple GUIs, but not for animations. Here are SWF and XAML versions to compare 0:43
189MaartenNow write a VID to that....30-Jan-09 23:01
188MaartenCheck the demos on that one. 3D cube is nice. And this works cross browser...30-Jan-09 23:01
187Maarteniecanvas.... canvas.... build a UI in the new JS engines on that.... let anyone in the game. Dump the schizophrenic CSS + DIV + JS. 23:00
186Henrikwith HTML5, would the browser itself provide the video player?30-Jan-09 22:05
185BrianHOf course most people wouldn't let Flash or Silverlight run in their browser at all if it wasn't for video sites like YouTube.30-Jan-09 21:57
184BrianHThe ability for either Flash or Silverlight to improve in an open/free way, in the areas where they are currently strong - multimedia and video - is very limited because of all of the patents on multimedia codecs. In other ways, Silverlight has more potentiial right now for open/free development because MS actually provides developer support to the Mono/Moonlight project.30-Jan-09 21:56
183BrianHI'd like to see HTML5 video, and not use Flash or Silverlight for video at all.30-Jan-09 21:53
182HenrikI was amazed at how well video runs in Silverlight on my Mac. But I'd still like to see a separation of video from Flash to get a simpler and truly optimized video player.30-Jan-09 21:52
181BrianHI think that Flash is *currently* better than Silverlight, but Silverlight has more *potential* because of the system model and such. It would be relatively easy to change the tools around Silverlight and add new capabilities to it, but it would be hard to change the entire semanitc model and system structure of Flash without breaking all Flash code in existence. That is what I mean about more potential.30-Jan-09 21:48
180ReichartWhy don't we just take PS, and simply move what NeXT did over to the web 15 years ago? Worked well there.30-Jan-09 20:11
179ReichartSVG though I think of as ONLY 2D vector stuff. No?30-Jan-09 20:11
178MaartenBut early attempts strand so far. Anybody remmeber SMIL? More recently, SVG? Or..?30-Jan-09 11:36
177ReichartI don't know which is better, or which will win, but both systems are not the best or desired final design in my opionion.

We need a completely open/free base that is a webased standard all devices can and do support by default.

30-Jan-09 2:34
176?I'm with Oldes. I still think that Flash is far better than Silverlight.30-Jan-09 2:04
175OldesI don't think that Silverlight has more potential than Flash. From what I've seen, Flash is still much more better. And you have IDEs to make graphics for Flash which almost every designer is using now. I've dowloaded one MS tool to try to make Silverlight graphic app (to test if it would be possible to make a Silverlight version of the game we are making in Flash) and I must say, that I have a problems to use it. I cannot imagine how not programmers can use it.30-Jan-09 0:05
174ReichartFlash UI libraries are getting pretty good, check this 23:14
173BrianHSo they adopted JQuery *and* push Silverlight where they can, even if that means supporting the Moonlight project like they did for the inauguration stream. I think that Silverlight has more potential than Flash, but I am not Flash's target market :)29-Jan-09 22:51
172BrianHNot everyone can or will install Silverlight, and not every site can insist that their customers do so. MS developer tools division tries to support whatever their developers want to do on MS development platforms like ASP.NET. AJAX needs JS frameworks.29-Jan-09 22:38
171MaartenSo as to push Silverlight, e.g. 23:03
170ReichartMaybe.28-Jan-09 23:02
169MaartenI think they'll use jQuery to instantiate Silverlight controls.28-Jan-09 23:00
168ReichartWhy would they adopt jQuery as opposed to push Silverlight?28-Jan-09 22:48
167RobertOk, will take a look at it.28-Jan-09 11:51
166PekrRobert - guys visited me last month, and we talked about some 2 - 3 years future, about SharePoint portal. They told me one thing towards AJAX - MS is going to adopt jquery, without any changes. But of course, I would not consider it being set-in-stone. So maybe a jquery?28-Jan-09 11:26
165OldesAnd using this site you can compare, how much the frameworks use the global variables (the less is better I think) 11:22
164OldesFrom what I tried (not much) I prefere jQuery28-Jan-09 11:19
163RobertDoes anyone has a good overview about current Ajax frameworks and pros/cons about these?28-Jan-09 10:35
162GrahamExhibit seems a very interesting light weight JS framework.27-Dec-08 8:12
161Will 0:05
160Alek_K :-)16-May-06 23:35
159ChrisFor all Yahoo!'s talk about web UI patterns and best practise, I still required User Agent Spoofing (through Camitools) to get it working...16-May-06 15:18
158Maximoops: site == cited16-May-06 15:18
157Maximstandard Windows user type designing, bad layout, bad looks, cramped, and very inconsistent with itself in the first look!

an example to be site in courses about how NOT to design a UI.

16-May-06 15:18
156Chris -- imo. this is an Ajaxian nightmare: spaghetti code, slow response, over-designed (but then Yahoo! has never been noted for their design restraint).16-May-06 15:14
155TerryJaveline DeskRun: Run Ajax Apps as Native Windows Programs 20:42
154ChrisOf course there are glaring drawbacks, but they don't matter enough. Widgets (read Reblets) do have a niche -- eg. Apple's Dashboard is a far better experience than Windows Live and its ilk -- but we're not in that space, Reblets are still too tricky to deploy...23-Apr-06 17:16
153ChrisThere are three aspects that make Ajax apps compelling: 1) distribution is easy, with no installation, one click away from any web site; 2) the environment is consistent, rich and predictable; 3) Remotely accessible, one does not have to own a computer, or even have disk access, to resume using an app (classic example, using a library to use a web mail app).23-Apr-06 17:04
152Volker(although java made that possible for years, and the fatness of a comparable ajax-browser is the same)23-Apr-06 11:07
151VolkerAjax also need decent css-support for drag/drop etc. its not only quick downloads, the browser mustbe good enough to allow a "native app".23-Apr-06 11:06
150SunandaYes. Which means Ajax is not a universally appliable solution....At least not yet.23-Apr-06 10:49
149RobertBut Ajax nees JS as well, right?23-Apr-06 10:47
148MichaelBGood point.23-Apr-06 10:30
147SunandaBear in mind that around 10% of all people do not have javascript enabled. That way be through choice, necessity, or following US government security advice. Javascript usage stats: "Before clicking on a link to a web site that you are not familiar with or do not trust, take the precaution of disabling active content.":

With PHP all the oomph is in the server , so it is under your control. As you cannot guarantee that JS will be available in the client if, extra steps are needed to ensure the website works without it -- even though it may work spectacularly better with it.

23-Apr-06 9:39
146MichaelBI guess it's really just because most people (me included) didn't know about it until recently. :-) And it's so nice, because (as Reichart said) it's for some things the way it should have been done in the first place. (it's nice for me, because in a small project I'm doing right now, I can skip almost all PHP coding, because I can do most stuff in Javascript and just let the PHP do the database handling)23-Apr-06 9:31
145RobertIf someone is interested I can see if I find the old sources.23-Apr-06 9:05
144RobertI really don't understand all the buzz about Ajax. About 1998/1999 a friend of mine and I made a remote Javascript debugger that used IFrames to update the client page without reloading. And we were able to remote debug the client side. The problem was, that we really drove the Javascript and DOM engines to the limit...23-Apr-06 9:05
143Terry(a puzzle)23-Apr-06 4:07
142Terry25 3 3 1 423-Apr-06 4:07
141GreggThe great thing about SBYNH is that those who don't use it won't likely procreate.22-Apr-06 18:01
140Maximits funny how people constantly mixup java and javascript. :-(22-Apr-06 17:00
139?Ruby is cute... (a little gem).22-Apr-06 16:43
138?In my first post about Rebel I meant to say "I never liked Rebol (the spelling), but like the idea behind the name.22-Apr-06 16:43
137Maxim(well, fixing is not the proper term I guess ;-)22-Apr-06 16:42
136Maximand obviously the surgery procedures already worked out to fix failed SBYNH ;-)22-Apr-06 16:42
135?You know how when something new comes along they give it a new word, and it really just does what the old thing did? For me this means we have to learn a new word, when in reality it is just the same thing.

AJAX is the "concept" that a browser can talk to the server and ask for a little information, instead of loading the whole page again and again and again!

This is a Technology!?! This is "all" that AJAX is, nothing more. It is the "concept" that we are finally doing something the way it should have been done in the first place.

I'm coming out with a new technology next year, I'm working with two doctors on it. It is called SBYNH:

Stop Banging Your Nuts with a Hammer.

We expect quite a turn out. We will have medical professionals on hand to explain the long term affects of failing to use SBYNH.

22-Apr-06 16:41
134?I agree with Brian. LiveScript was a better name, and reduced confusion. I have never like Rebel, but really like the idea of Rebel. There are so many exmaples of name space conflict where there does not need to be.

And on the topic of AJAX:

22-Apr-06 16:40
133AllenOK Bryan ;-)22-Apr-06 9:50
132BrianWSome decisions I will never understand. Turining "LiveScript" into "JavaScript", spelling it "R-E-B-O-L" but calling it "rebel". Like there isn't enough confusion in the world today :)21-Apr-06 19:52
131BrianWWell, Javascript maybe rather than Java, but I get the idea.21-Apr-06 19:50
130TerryYawn.15-Apr-06 4:20
129?Flash is very impressive:

This is the best example I have seen of a Zimba like app in Flash (major backer is Mark Cuban).

13-Apr-06 14:45
128?What they have been doing is moving this to AJAX bit by bit. So it looks like thier old stuff, but functions about half as well.13-Apr-06 14:44
127HenrikFlash is starting to catch up on the GUI part and they are much more light weight than Java, but I'm not sure how easy/hard they are to do13-Apr-06 14:44
126?Lastly, it is not exacly "AJAX" most of the cool UI you see is JAVA. (which in my mind is Rebol + Good browser blug-in supprt).13-Apr-06 14:41
125?"the browser is becoming a very decent platform for developing applications"

: )

Zimbra "looks" very good. I have used it (in depth), it is not exactly what it appears. But they do a very nice job. They are in my top 10 Issue Tracking systems.

13-Apr-06 14:38
124Henrikwhich is why the rebol/plugin is going to be a very important marketing tool for rebol13-Apr-06 14:09
123ChrisAnd then there's access -- being able to use Ajax apps without owning a computer...13-Apr-06 14:04
122Henrikyes, I think the amount of actual artistry among Rebol coders is too small13-Apr-06 11:26
121GrahamSadly there are not a lot of rebol coders who can create a great looking gui.13-Apr-06 11:24
120Henrikthat's entirely up to the artist/coder doing the GUI13-Apr-06 11:22
119GrahamBut if the reblets don't look as good as embedded html apps?13-Apr-06 11:22
118GeomolHaving everything wrapped in HTML (or XML or whatever markup-language) is not a good solution. I hate using applications inside a browser, because they're always slooooow. Native application clients are much better. Think reblets!13-Apr-06 11:20
117Pekrit is not browser which is capable - other technologies are ... but you are right - browser is a platform - it is a container ... it is a VM of a kind - you don't need .NET or .JAVA - you need native browser, which "contains" other technologies ... now let's have REBOL in a browser, our .REBOL :-)13-Apr-06 10:31
116Grahamthe browser is becoming a very decent platform for developing applications13-Apr-06 9:48
115GrahamThe client can recognise phone numbers and bring up Skype to dial numbers, recognises addresses and popups yahoo maps etc.13-Apr-06 9:48
114GrahamZimbra is a sort of exchange clone.13-Apr-06 9:47
113GrahamI found the flash demos on this site very impressive.13-Apr-06 9:47
112Maximfunny How I coded such a thing myself 5 years ago though (floating divs with title bar and internal scroll bars I guess its shadow effects make it worthy of a patent. ;-)11-Apr-06 16:25
111ChrisStill seems like a step back from native windowing...11-Apr-06 16:22
110Maximits nice, visually.11-Apr-06 16:19
109Pekrhope we get full-featured plug-in one day ...11-Apr-06 16:18
108Pekryes .... the bad part is, that they will claim how cool it is, no matter that it was done before ...11-Apr-06 16:18
107Reboleknice. reminds me of SWiS.11-Apr-06 16:17
106Gabriele 16:13
105Oldes 14:54
104Oldes(it looks that the "nice" site killed my firefox after playing a little bit with it:-) eating about 200MB of my memory:-)))11-Apr-06 12:46
103Pekrdon't you think we need new windowing system for browsers? I think that view layout is not good model anymore ... it opens new OS window ... but that will be regarded being a popup .... we imo definitely need rebol own windowing system ...11-Apr-06 12:44
102Oldes(with test, that if the httpReqeust object is not available, I have to use old style -all page reload:-)11-Apr-06 12:42
101OldesAnyway, I'm giving ajax (or I don't know how to call it, because it's not ajax, it's just a httprequest) next try with this modified function: function getXMLHttpRequestObj(){ var ajx; if(window.ActiveXObject) { if(_XML_ActiveX) { ajx = new ActiveXObject(_XML_ActiveX); } else { var versions = [ "MSXML2.XMLHTTP", "Microsoft.XMLHTTP", "Msxml2.XMLHTTP.7.0", "Msxml2.XMLHTTP.6.0", "Msxml2.XMLHTTP.5.0", "Msxml2.XMLHTTP.4.0", "MSXML2.XMLHTTP.3.0" ]; for (var i = 0; i < versions.length; i++) { try { ajx = new ActiveXObject(versions[i]); if (ajx) { var _XML_ActiveX = versions[i]; break; } } catch (e) {} } } } if(!ajx && typeof XMLHttpRequest != undefined) { try { ajx = new XMLHttpRequest(); } catch (e) { return null; } } return ajx; }11-Apr-06 12:39
100Henrikyes, the plugin is going to become very important11-Apr-06 12:39
99Pekrhmm, then we need that plug-in, gee :-)11-Apr-06 12:38
98Oldesvia do-browser you can do everything - it just evaluates JS code11-Apr-06 12:37
97Pekrwhat browsers are ajax compatible? IE since 5.5? let's forget old browsers then ... ppl should upgrade, if they want something new ...11-Apr-06 12:37
96Henrikserver-in-a-browser would be a piece of cake with rebol. just consider that you can output HTML code to the browser via DOM as well as View graphics11-Apr-06 12:37
95Pekrbut still, dom interface is weak, no? otoh we don't need full rebol version of dom, js has one, so via do-browser we can call even dom, right? :-)11-Apr-06 12:37
94Oldesthe netvibes site is nice, but the problem is still the same, - you have to do it in old way as well, if you want to make pages for more people then net-freaks11-Apr-06 12:36
93Pekrserver? yes, possible with rebol.11-Apr-06 12:36
92OldesInteresting can be, if you run serven in clients page:-))11-Apr-06 12:35
91Henrikyou need to embed it in a webpage somehow11-Apr-06 12:35
90Henrikit would be a plugin, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes other than a smaller DLL file11-Apr-06 12:34
89Pekrbut - what does it mean - core in browser? it is plug-in too, no?11-Apr-06 12:34
88HenrikI'm pretty sure that /core would run circles around AJAX, during the tests I made a couple of years ago11-Apr-06 12:33
87PekrI just would like to ask, if there is any perspective for rebol - e.g. that we could have core in browser (not view) and do ajax too? :-)11-Apr-06 12:31
86PekrHe suggested me to watch - and sites for e.g.11-Apr-06 12:19
85PekrI just recently held discussion with my old amiga friend, and I reminded him of Rebol 3.0. He seemed really confident, that ajax ends most of private, non open sourced technologies .... and that View with ajax has no sense anymore :-)11-Apr-06 12:19
84OldesMust say, that I have to leave using AJAX in my sites, where I was using it in public pools, because it looks, that for some people it's impossible to vote. There is still too many people using old crap (W98 with ancient IE browsers) .11-Apr-06 9:51
83? 6:29
82?microsofts ajax with .net (ofcourse..) some info -> 6:29
81Maximit used to be that when you coudn't see you where blind.. in this politically correct world you are now visually impaired. I guess that using javascript is also the same, now you say you are an ajax programmer. ;-)28-Mar-06 20:50
80Oldesbut do I compare Ajax with Rebol?28-Mar-06 20:42
79Oldesyes, it's nice, I use it for example here 20:41
78Maximhahaha28-Mar-06 20:41
77Rebolekisn't it amazing?28-Mar-06 20:40
76Rebolekyes28-Mar-06 20:40
75OldesI still don't understand why so many people are so excited with Ajax, from my point of view it's just the getXMLHttpRequestObj() function, which started to work after many years in more than one browser, and which enable us to load something without need to reload all the page.28-Mar-06 20:40
74Maximajax : the new way of doing everything without changing anything in the way we are doing things.28-Mar-06 20:36
73GrahamLotus had a suite of their applications that loaded across the network .. looked neat when I went to the demo 10 years ago.28-Mar-06 20:34
72Grahamnot ready for prime time yet.28-Mar-06 20:33
71GrahamAnd it always loads the same document regardless of what I choose.28-Mar-06 20:33
70Maximman, cant' people stop inventing synonims.28-Mar-06 20:32
69RebolekI don't understand why they choose that name28-Mar-06 20:32
68RebolekIt's not AJAX based but XUL based and XUL is Mozilla-specific.28-Mar-06 20:32
67GrahamThis is a pretty bizarre program .. I tried loading a word doc from my docs, and it loads a completely different one.28-Mar-06 20:32
66Oldesit's running only in Firefox!28-Mar-06 20:22
65Allen 4:48
64AllenI don't see anything on the that page, just a space where a flash movie is supposed to be.14-Mar-06 22:22
63WillSlides on Comet 18:27
62TerryEverything is data.11-Mar-06 19:39
61Maarten"Websites are just babysitting databases, so tehy invented RubyOnRails to make that easier". I saw this on the web somewhere, and it is true (both in terms of RoR qualities and limitations)11-Mar-06 8:16
60WillWhat about this one? wouldn't be nice to have in rebol? PAJAX - Remote (a)synchronous PHP objects in JavaScript 16:56
59WillWhich one is better? 23:54
58Terry"Alex Russell has coined a term for a flavour of Ajax thatís been getting more attention of late. Comet describes applications where the server keeps pushing - or streaming - data to the client, instead of having the browser keep polling the server for fresh content. Alex identifies several buzzworthy examples:" 0:07
57VolkerAnd juice.4-Mar-06 15:30
56VolkerAnd java since 1996 or so?4-Mar-06 15:29
55Terry"now the browser works like it should have in the first place"

Now? getElementById has been around since 1998.. IFRAME-based JSRS library from 2000, Image/Cookie technique in 2000 and XMLHttpRequest since 2002

4-Mar-06 8:59
54?Our plan is actually to split off a page and start the UI from scratch for the Framework. it will be fun. We will simply do everything one step at a time, and correctly.3-Mar-06 23:50
53?We are activily working on Comet, and the framework. We should see the first hints of the framework on Qtask in about 2 weeks is my guess. The lead of the FRamework just finished the full Contact Manager which is live on Qtask now.3-Mar-06 23:49
52Tomcsomething about monkeys with billions banging on keyboards ...3-Mar-06 19:17
51MaartenYep. And Microsoft accidentally did that. How sad is that?3-Mar-06 18:26
50CarlThe best quote I've seen for Ajax is: "now the browser works like it should have in the first place"3-Mar-06 18:23
49MaartenAnd when is the Comet coming?3-Mar-06 16:52
48?Qtask uses a Rebol version of AJAX (we call it Comet).3-Mar-06 6:11
47?Thats clear Reichart ..thanks.. ;-)2-Mar-06 6:23
46?You got it Norman.....I went through the same "what the hell is this that did not alrewady exist"

AJAX is another way of say "Don't refresh teh page every time, just send me the small amount of data I need"

2-Mar-06 5:17
45?Actualy I dont understand a bit of the principle and functionality of AJAX, is there someone here who can explain me the extra value of AJAX? (it looks all like a very old priciple that was put in a jacket with strange programming languages..)1-Mar-06 23:41
44TerryA-/Synchronous use of XMLHttpReqest (Pushing data from a server to a browser async style.. ) 23:34
43Will 18:42
42? 10:02
41AllenThe google issue is a good one, search engines are the reasons that previous things like frames and iframes failed. As Neilson often states, since the advent of powerfull search engines like google, there is no longer a real concept of websites..rather from a web user point of view, it is just a search box and a list result web pages with what they want to find10-Dec-05 2:30
40TerryHenrik, I know javascript, but the learning curve for it is harsh.. A dialect would shave off that curve.9-Dec-05 20:24
39Henrikneat.... I might read up on that, thanks :-)9-Dec-05 15:19
38ChrisJavascript needs a Rebol dialect, hmm --

Close, but not quite...

9-Dec-05 15:09
37HenrikIf you don't need it, why would Rebol need one? Also I think if it was needed, more people would have asked for it and someone would have made attempts at writing one. Still, it could be interesting with a code generator to other languages that way...9-Dec-05 14:41
36TerryI personally don't need one.. Rebol does.9-Dec-05 1:22
35Ashley"it needs to create a javascript dialect" - then instead of waiting for someone else to do it, either create one yourself or start a project of like-minded individuals. ;)8-Dec-05 22:58
34TerryTahoma is a nice font.8-Dec-05 19:02
33TerryI find fluxiom's style sheet to be 'inspiring' :)8-Dec-05 19:01
32TerryI've said it before, but to press the point.. If Rebol wants to keep with the times, it needs to create a javascript dialect8-Dec-05 18:49
31?Interesting. Is there a site to play with?7-Dec-05 19:17
30yeksoonthink this is heavy on Ajax..but it is cool 15:33
29?Agreed.6-Dec-05 21:05
28Henriksadly, it probably will. it's the same thing as using MS Word to build webpages. never meant to do it, but it was shoved in there for the sake of adding some random feature6-Dec-05 20:15
27MaartenHenrik: your remark is the classic one somebody makes when a technology is about to be misused for a killer app. Now we know Ajax/Web 2.0 will boom ;-)6-Dec-05 19:31
26GabrieleI guess that's also why they now have Google Base.6-Dec-05 11:12
25VolkerInteresting, bever thought about that. Seems Google has thought about that too. Because with firefox they can build spiders which press buttons, read the results from the dom etc. Means you may get some robot-users which try mad input.. And they have this new traffic-tools for webmasters, where you can see what is searched, how yoursite is ranked etc. So everyone can tune his ajax enough to be googable too.5-Dec-05 22:42
24?Oldes (David?), you make a good point, but think of it the other way around. As the web moves to the X-Web (even this silly Web 2.0), Google's life as a search engine will end.

I'm pro google, and I think they offer a GREAT service. But take most companies off the web and Google is a lot less interesting, and it becomes a glorified Yellow Pages.

Of course it will still be filled with open information, but I suspect it will lose its shine.

5-Dec-05 16:35
23HenrikI still think it's a poor replacement for ordinary apps... browsers were never meant to do this kind of thing.5-Dec-05 14:41
22OldesI think Ajax is not good for clasic pages, as it make the page invisible for Google, it's nice that XmlHTTPRequest is working in most of the browsers but it's nothing impressive, it just gets the data from server without ned to reload all the page.5-Dec-05 12:53
21PekrMaarten - never studies Ruby on Rails, but isn't IOS good framework at itself? (of course without web templating) .... I still can see IOS as powerfull, and imo things like Qtask, or Beer + some templating + IOS-like app protocol, could be stronger ....4-Dec-05 18:51
20ChrisSure, a framework helps, but opportunities are not always medium-sized.4-Dec-05 18:37
19ChrisIndeed, that was a response to 'only relation ... rebol spitting out Javascript'.4-Dec-05 18:35
18MaartenChris, I know that, but a good framework (like RoR) helps you a lot with medium-sized implementations4-Dec-05 18:33
17MaartenPetr: at devcon we discussed how you find a good programmer and work with them, and it turned out we did that more or less the same.4-Dec-05 18:32
16?Yup...4-Dec-05 17:14
15ChrisQtask is both a framework, and an example of REBOL<>Ajax crossover. It's a web (and Ajax) app, and will be one or many more Rebol apps. (including AltME). But you don't need a large framework to piggyback on Ajax implementations.4-Dec-05 15:46
14PekrMaarten - what algorith do you mean?4-Dec-05 12:53
13MaartenI think Reichart has a kind of RoR with Qtask (or he has very stupid porgrammers, which can't be true because we find our programmers using more or less the same alogrithm ;-)4-Dec-05 12:29
12TerryWhen dealing with Javascript, you should understand prototype.js here's a tutorial 4:07
11TerryUnless you build a RoR framework (Rebol On Rails)4-Dec-05 4:06
10TerryThe only relation I can see of Ajax and Rebol, is a rebol server spitting out Javascript.4-Dec-05 4:05
9ChrisOne I like is the info box that Netflix displays when you hover over a movie link. Can be a little annoying if it comes up too quickly or inadvertantly, but overall is a nice touch.3-Dec-05 23:24
8? 23:11
7ChrisFrom Wikipedia -- * Apple Safari 1.2 and above * Konqueror * Microsoft Internet Explorer (and derived browsers) 5.0 and above * Mozilla/Mozilla Firefox (and derived browsers) 1.0 and above * Netscape 7.1 and above * Opera 7.6 and above * Opera Mobile Browser 8.0 and above.3-Dec-05 16:01
6Henrikone short question: what browsers support it?3-Dec-05 15:45
5ChrisReally the whole buzz is focussed around the XmlHTTPRequest object that Microsoft, then others added to their Javascript environment. It isn't pretty (by Rebol standards) and has some limitations, but is effective enough to have opened new avenues in what one can do in creating web applications. **cough** Squigglz **cough** You can tell this is a Microsoft 'innovation' by the awful name 'XmlHTTPRequest' (XML not required), but there it is...3-Dec-05 15:37
4ChrisClient-Side JS Frameworks: * 15:15
3ChrisVariants: AHAH -- * Async HTML and HTTP, less subtle but widely supported AFLAX -- * Async Flash and XML (?), uses Flash3-Dec-05 15:13
2ChrisOriginal Definition: 15:10
1ChrisTo discuss Ajax development and potential opportunities for REBOL in this area.3-Dec-05 15:05

Return to Index Page