onion2k wrote:I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
You're confusing ajax with DHTML. A very common mistake.
In traditional web applications, the browser sends a request to a server, which responds with a single HTML document. At some point, the user clicks a link, or posts a form, and a new request-response cycle commences. At each of these, an entire document is transferred and rendered by the browser. The communication uses the HTTP protocol, and the browser is always the initiator of each cycle.
Javascript is a technology, with which you can make HTML interactive, within the browser. The combination of javascript and HTML is called DHTML (Dynamic HTML).
Ajax is a way of creating web applications, in which you use javascript to communicate with the server (over HTTP), rather than let the browser do it. This allows the application to update only part of the page, rather than the entire document. While this may sound like a small thing, it radically changes how the application works, because it breaks down the traditional request-response cycle.
Just as DHTML is a superset of javascript and HTML, so is ajax a superset of DHTML and HTTP-bindings for javascript.
What you were suggestion in your previous post, was to embed the data as (server side generated) javascript code inside an HTML document. This is a traditional web application style, using DHTML. Unless you use javascript to communicate over HTTP, it can not be called ajax.
I don't think it's a bad suggestion -- in many cases, ajax may not be needed, and you can simply use DHTML. I just wish people would say DHTML, when they mean DHTML, and ajax, when they mean ajax.