Pinched in fulltext from a comment on a post regarding Web 2.0 (originally written for FT, so it’s not particularly geeked out).
Such pages, however, tended toward dullness and infrequent updating.Or, to put it another way: Such pages tended to fulfill the original vision of the Web, which was to allow absolutely anyone to publish information that might otherwise be lost to the public, in a way that allows it to be searched, indexed, bookmarked, and linked to related information. And accessed by absolutely anybody who’s looking for it.
As opposed to today’s “dynamic” Web, where you need a broadband connection, an industrial-grade graphics workstation, and more plug-ins than a Roman orgy just to look up the atomic weight of molybdenum. Which you can’t bookmark because the URL is a dynamically-generated conglomeration of the hostname, your session ID, the phase of the moon, and the bra size of the webmaster’s current girlfriend, that doesn’t point to a page that’s actually stored on disk somewhere.
As nifty as it is that people have found new ways to make use of HTTP and HTML, we seem to be slowly losing the very concept of “publishing” as “preserving a record of today for future recall”. Instead of being the equivalent of an “address” where one can “go” to retrieve information, the URL has become a “magic incantation” that instructs a distant server to perform some action that may or may not produce the same results as the last time it was used.
In some ways, that’s good: it’s nice to be able to use the same mechanism to say “Bring up the latest edition of Dan’s blog”, “Show me the current pressure and temperature readings of Injection Molder #7″, and “Display page 7 from our company’s 2003 annual report”.
But there’s some very scary Orwellian potential here, as well as the risk of exacerbating the Digital Divide by constantly ramping up the minimal platform needed to access much of the web. Those librarians Dan mentioned lately shouldn’t be the only ones worried about making sure that a large percentage of online content remains “dull” and “static”.
I think the “Orwellian potential” bit is a load of scare-mongering crap (in relation to the other concerns posed in the article, at any rate), but everything else rings true.
I am, at present, working on the first large-scale project I’ve been involved in where <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX/ title=“Asynchronous JavaScript and XML”>AJAX is being utilised. In this instance, yes, it was my call: yes, I do feel it’s justified (reasons include traffic, and the advantage of not having to reload an entire page — yes, it’s large scale enough for that to be significant — and simple usability, because the architecture is such that users will desire to move quickly between elements of content, and AJAX facilitates that. More details post-release). We’ve been very careful to preserve functionality in non-XMLHttpRequest enabled UA environments, but it’s still not perfect — bookmarking is one (minor, given the nature of the content) problem that still requires rectification: that’s one thing I’m hoping to resolve tomorrow (along with general CSS compatability back to IE 5, possibly 4 — but that’s not particularly relevant). The Javascript is not particularly “unobtrusive” (still using inline onclick), which I’m hoping to similarly resolve prior to launch, but it’s not of any particularly great consequence.
This is not a site to be archived, as the author of the comment above laments. But he shouldn’t. That wasn’t ever this site’s purpose, so I’m not particularly concerned if the markup isn’t prestine. Yes, there will be RSS/Atom syndication. It’s a fairly Web 2.0 buzzword-compliant site, though (I hope) not particularly unneccessarily adoptive of such technologies. We’ll see.

http://www.choice.com.au/files/f117684.jpg ? :p
no no no no!
the bit about the changing url/uri/whatever it is people like calling them these days for the atomic mass (its actually mass not weight, seeing as weight changes and mass doesnt… derh) of Molybdenum (which happens to be 95.94 Amu) is completely and utterly WRONG! my main reason for saying this is… with the exception of myself and yourself, mr street, are there actually any webmasters with girlfriends to get a bra size off? and if they dont have girlfriends then it is obviously zero, which means the entire string becomes zero due to the nature of multiplying anything by zero…
just my two pence worth :P
No more inline JavaScript! (I just learned this…) Separating behaviour from content is just as important as separating presentation from content.
Instead of using inline JavaScript, to specify the event, you can use an “event listener,” which “listens” for a particular event, on a particular element (getElementById) –and then perform whatever function that needs to be performed.
Yay! I was so happy to finally get rid of inline JavaScript. I hate it. It’s sloppy and I hate “inline anything.”
I’ll get off my soapbox now. (Sorry, just excited)
On another note — regarding AJAX — I’ve been having some “organization” issues — considering a typical AJAX interaction involves so many external files:
That’s five external files! I’m working on organizing things better.
It’s not sloppy when all your pages are dynamically generated. In this instance, it would barely even be a page-weight saving to move from onclick events to using an event handler, because the anchors clicked to trigger AJAX actions need to contain two pieces of data as per a GET request… that is, have intrinsic data attached. I could put this in an ID for each item, in the form id=“x_y”, then parse that out with PHP’s explode() , but it’s not a big deal at all. It’s still accessible, it’s still usable, and the page has no outstanding need to be archived so I’m not concerned about it breaking twenty years in the future because of JavaScript errors as inline onclick calls a non-existant function!
Having said all that, yes, I’m still trying to fix it. :)
none of this makes any sense josh, none of the entries what so ever! oh and can i get your home address? i need to send you something :) oooh! surprises!
Yeah hey… the front page is at present rather dominated by web geekery. Hmm. Emailing you an address :P