An Ajax Dictionary... My first AJAX project...

Discussion in 'HTML' started by GreatDomainz@gmail.com, Feb 17, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hello...

    Just wondering what you guys think of my first AJAX project...

    http://www.dictionary.sc/

    Take a second to check it out & let me know what you think.

    Don.
     
    , Feb 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Els Guest

    wrote:

    > Hello...
    >
    > Just wondering what you guys think of my first AJAX project...
    >
    > http://www.dictionary.sc/
    >
    > Take a second to check it out & let me know what you think.


    "Could not locate remote server"

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, Feb 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    odd... it's working for me.
     
    , Feb 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Dylan Parry Guest

    Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?",
    finally proclaimed:

    > Take a second to check it out & let me know what you think.


    Works fine from here. I only took a very quick look at it, but I liked
    the way that it worked! Nice and fast, and the results that popped up
    predicted what I was looking for pretty well.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
     
    Dylan Parry, Feb 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Els Guest

    Els, Feb 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Jose Guest

    > http://dictionary.sc/

    Cool. But AJAX isn't in it.

    Oh, the irony!

    Jose
    --
    Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
    for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
     
    Jose, Feb 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Els wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hello...
    >>
    >>Just wondering what you guys think of my first AJAX project...
    >>
    >>http://www.dictionary.sc/
    >>
    >>Take a second to check it out & let me know what you think.

    >
    >
    > "Could not locate remote server"
    >

    Same here, could not be found

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 17, 2006
    #7
  8. On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > > > http://www.dictionary.sc/

    > >
    > > "Could not locate remote server"
    > >

    > Same here, could not be found


    $ host www.dictionary.sc
    Host www.dictionary.sc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

    $ host dictionary.sc
    dictionary.sc has address 65.98.89.115

    Seems pretty clear to me (or rather, to our DNS servers).

    Some client agents might obfuscate the situation by adding or
    taking-away "www.", if their first try got nowhere.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Feb 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Alan J. Flavell a formulé la demande :
    > On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >>>> http://www.dictionary.sc/
    >>>
    >>> "Could not locate remote server"
    >>>

    >> Same here, could not be found

    >
    > $ host www.dictionary.sc
    > Host www.dictionary.sc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
    >
    > $ host dictionary.sc
    > dictionary.sc has address 65.98.89.115
    >
    > Seems pretty clear to me (or rather, to our DNS servers).
    >
    > Some client agents might obfuscate the situation by adding or
    > taking-away "www.", if their first try got nowhere.


    Probably just a refresh delay :

    $ host www.dictionary.sc
    www.dictionary.sc CNAME dictionary.sc
    dictionary.sc A 65.98.89.115

    --
    Julien CROUZET - DSI Theoconcept
    julien.crouzet@/enlever ca\theoconcept.com
    http://www.theoconcept.com
     
    Julien CROUZET, Feb 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Julien CROUZET wrote:
    > Alan J. Flavell a formulé la demande :
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> http://www.dictionary.sc/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Could not locate remote server"
    >>>>
    >>> Same here, could not be found

    >>
    >>
    >> $ host www.dictionary.sc
    >> Host www.dictionary.sc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
    >>
    >> $ host dictionary.sc
    >> dictionary.sc has address 65.98.89.115
    >>
    >> Seems pretty clear to me (or rather, to our DNS servers).
    >>
    >> Some client agents might obfuscate the situation by adding or
    >> taking-away "www.", if their first try got nowhere.

    >
    >
    > Probably just a refresh delay :
    >
    > $ host www.dictionary.sc
    > www.dictionary.sc CNAME dictionary.sc
    > dictionary.sc A 65.98.89.115
    >


    Well from here I get:

    # host www.dictionary.sc
    Host www.dictionary.sc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

    65.98.89.115 in a browser gets me to a single page that reads:

    "Secure Onlines

    "Welcome, This is A Secure Area.

    Access Denied

    Any question you can email "


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Disco Octopus, Feb 18, 2006
    #11
  12. Dylan Parry Guest

    Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Disco Octopus
    finally proclaimed:

    > Ye. It looks to me like just plain old javascript doing some stuff to an
    > innerHTML.


    How else would you update the page with the new results? Google et al
    use nothing different in their own AJAX apps.

    > I thought that AJAX was something different to that.


    The specific part of the code that tells you it's AJAX is:

    //Gets the browser specific XmlHttpRequest Object
    function getXmlHttpRequestObject() {
    if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
    return new XMLHttpRequest();
    } else if(window.ActiveXObject) {
    return new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
    } else {
    alert("Your Browser Sucks!\nIt's about time to upgrade don't you
    think?");
    }
    }

    The rest of the code will handle the sending and receiving of requests,
    and the updating of the page with plain old Javascript.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
     
    Dylan Parry, Feb 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Dylan Parry a pensé très fort :
    > Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", Disco Octopus
    > finally proclaimed:
    >
    >> Ye. It looks to me like just plain old javascript doing some stuff to an
    >> innerHTML.

    >
    > How else would you update the page with the new results? Google et al
    > use nothing different in their own AJAX apps.


    Well, "AJAX" is just some wind. All discussions are about the "X"
    for XML in AJAX. Technically this :

    * Can be AJAX as it use XmlHttpRequest and it's supposed to fetch some
    XML (or kinda badly formed HTML etc)
    * Is not really "elites AJAX" as it just update some innerHTML, and
    not some SOAP or some "fashion frameworks".

    I juste see an inconvenient on the bandwith use as ALL the HTML is sent
    on every search, but i found it cool and fast.

    Nice work.






    --
    Julien CROUZET - DSI Theoconcept
    julien.crouzet@/enlever ca\theoconcept.com
    http://www.theoconcept.com
     
    Julien CROUZET, Feb 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:38:06 +0000, Dylan Parry <>
    wrote:

    >> Ye. It looks to me like just plain old javascript doing some stuff to an
    >> innerHTML.

    >
    >How else would you update the page with the new results? Google et al
    >use nothing different in their own AJAX apps.


    The honourable cephalod is quite right. ".innerHTML" has no part in
    well-written AJAX work. It's flakey, it's slow and it's going to get
    even more so as we drag slowly towards XML processing on the client
    side.

    AJAX is (or should) be about manipulation of the client browser's DOM,
    i.e. the Object Model of the page, as it's in use by the browser and
    long fter it has been rendered from the HTML document. Although it's
    admittedly easy to work with innerHTML and insert some HTML fragments
    into it that way, these need to be parsed by the browser before being
    inserted into the DOM. If your AJAX is building long navigation browse
    lists on th efly, then this speed difference can be appreciable.

    For XML documents it's even worse, as innerHTML may force the browser to
    flip from an XML DOM into a HTML representation (it might swap back
    again later, if possible). Using innerHTML is _really_ incompatible
    with trying to work in an XML style.


    >> I thought that AJAX was something different to that.


    There's no hard and fast spec for AJAX, so its hard to say just what is
    and what isn't. But using .innerHTML is shoddy coding and I certainly
    don't permit it for new work.

    The difference between AJAX and the asynchronous JavaScript and
    XMLHTTPRequest work that was going on back in '99 is that AJAX
    represents a set of well thought out good practice for how to build
    apps. .innerHTML is one of the possibilities that was rejected through
    this tidying up process.
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 18, 2006
    #14
  15. Le 18/02/2006, Andy Dingley a supposé :
    > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:38:06 +0000, Dylan Parry <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> Ye. It looks to me like just plain old javascript doing some stuff to an
    >>> innerHTML.

    >>
    >> How else would you update the page with the new results? Google et al
    >> use nothing different in their own AJAX apps.

    >
    > The honourable cephalod is quite right. ".innerHTML" has no part in
    > well-written AJAX work. It's flakey, it's slow and it's going to get
    > even more so as we drag slowly towards XML processing on the client
    > side.
    >
    > AJAX is (or should) be about manipulation of the client browser's DOM,
    > i.e. the Object Model of the page, as it's in use by the browser and
    > long fter it has been rendered from the HTML document. Although it's
    > admittedly easy to work with innerHTML and insert some HTML fragments
    > into it that way, these need to be parsed by the browser before being
    > inserted into the DOM. If your AJAX is building long navigation browse
    > lists on th efly, then this speed difference can be appreciable.
    >
    > For XML documents it's even worse, as innerHTML may force the browser to
    > flip from an XML DOM into a HTML representation (it might swap back
    > again later, if possible). Using innerHTML is _really_ incompatible
    > with trying to work in an XML style.
    >
    >
    >>> I thought that AJAX was something different to that.

    >
    > There's no hard and fast spec for AJAX, so its hard to say just what is
    > and what isn't. But using .innerHTML is shoddy coding and I certainly
    > don't permit it for new work.
    >
    > The difference between AJAX and the asynchronous JavaScript and
    > XMLHTTPRequest work that was going on back in '99 is that AJAX
    > represents a set of well thought out good practice for how to build
    > apps. .innerHTML is one of the possibilities that was rejected through
    > this tidying up process.


    That's true for a big, full AJAX based application, but I'm not sure
    that using a > 200ko framework for such a tiny application is such a
    good idea.

    Just my two cents.

    --
    Julien CROUZET - DSI Theoconcept
    julien.crouzet@/enlever ca\theoconcept.com
    http://www.theoconcept.com
     
    Julien CROUZET, Feb 18, 2006
    #15
  16. Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:27:09 +0100, "Julien CROUZET"
    <julien.crouzet@/enlever ca\theoconcept.com> wrote:

    >That's true for a big, full AJAX based application, but I'm not sure
    >that using a > 200ko framework for such a tiny application is such a
    >good idea.


    What's a "framework" ? AJAX is _not_ a "framework", in the sense that
    the term is normally used in the heavyweight Java world. You might well
    have a point that such frameworks are inappropriate for simple apps, but
    that's not what AJAX is advocating anyway.

    Secondly, bad code is bad code. Doing it wrongly in a small app is no
    more excusable than doing it wrongly in a large app. The two axes are
    unrelated.
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 18, 2006
    #16
  17. Aaron Gray Guest

    > Hello...

    Hi

    > Just wondering what you guys think of my first AJAX project...
    >
    > http://www.dictionary.sc/
    >
    > Take a second to check it out & let me know what you think.


    Its a bit nondeterminate.

    It seems to get words after a while of typing them in a number of times ?

    Are you reading from anothre source on the web ?

    God though.

    Aaron
     
    Aaron Gray, Feb 18, 2006
    #17
  18. Aaron Gray Guest

    > God though.

    Woopse, ment "good" not "god" :)

    Aaron
     
    Aaron Gray, Feb 18, 2006
    #18
  19. Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Aaron Gray quothed:

    > > God though.

    >
    > Woopse, ment "good" not "god" :)
    >
    > Aaron


    Maybe you ought to change your name to "Errin"...

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Feb 18, 2006
    #19
  20. Aaron Gray Guest

    >> Aaron
    >
    > Maybe you ought to change your name to "Errin"...


    Very funny !:)

    Aaron
     
    Aaron Gray, Feb 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. matt
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    422
    Andrew Thompson
    Oct 27, 2004
  2. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    444
    Ilias Lazaridis
    Feb 21, 2006
  3. james_027
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    328
    Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
    Aug 22, 2007
  4. Navkirat Singh
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,071
    Navkirat Singh
    Jul 29, 2010
  5. Chris Rebert
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    Chris Rebert
    Jul 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page