I started this as a comment over at Alex Russell's entry, "ajaxWrong", copied here because I felt like it. He writes:
- This thing is appropriating the necessarily amorphous terminology of “Ajax” for an implementation that is directly at odds with why Ajax is an important technology. A XUL app being billed as “Ajax” is just as laughable as a Flex or XAML app suddenly growing the same moniker. That it’s Mozilla’s walled-garden language doesn’t really excuse the gaffe.
I thought ajaxWrite was pretty keen when I first tried it - I presumed there must've been a bit of nice trickery to get what is generally called an AJAX app to work like that. Imagine my disappointed surprise when I realize that they used XUL. XUL ain't AJAX, no matter how you try to deform and stretch the term.
It’s not a spec, so you can’t get away with a literal reading of “There’s no HTML in AJAX, so neener!” It’s a community concensus term. And, XUL ain’t a part of it. Hell, read the list from the original article coining the term:
- standards-based presentation using XHTML and CSS;
- dynamic display and interaction using the Document Object Model;
- data interchange and manipulation using XML and XSLT;
- asynchronous data retrieval using XMLHttpRequest;
That’s what AJAX means to
us . If you want it to mean something else and get away with it, you’re going to have to convince everyone who read that article and ran with that definition.