Buzzen Chats New Layout and Design.

[Guest X-Fusion]

Talk about an essay!

[Chuck]

Finally, i didn't have much time to look at buzzen v2 webchat area, but it looks like no javascript on the webchat (especially not on the page where the chat area is done) uses XMLHttpRequest objects. You may say "so what ?" and I may answer "so this is no Ajax without XMLHttpRequest s". If you read DHTML (Dynamic HTML) definition as stated on Wikipedia:

This is exactly matching what seems to be done on buzzen v2 webchat site: HTML4, CSS, Javascript (which may include DOM manipulations). Ajax is the usage of all this plus XML and sending asynchronous HTTP requests from Javascript and processing the result to present it using (X)HTML and CSS (and it's not limited to that). It's not only about formatting text using javascript and displaying it using HTML and CSS by communicating with a flash application which is more in the DHTML scope.

Client is based on html, javascript, css, flash, xml, and asynchronous calls. Programmers are not bothered to give it a specific name, but ajax comes close. If anyone wants to give this kind of programming a specific name, be my guest.

*************************************

 

 

As for XForms, it is an intent to provide an XML-description language for forms that is presentation-INdependant. It is, as stated on wikipedia, much like attempting to define a MVC DP (Model View Controller design pattern, quite a complicated one as there are many approaches and derivations of it). Sure it could be used probably with AJAX but it is not a way to standardize AJAX as far as i can see it from reading currently or previewed released XForms specifications.

I agree that AJAX and XForms will be used in conjunction. However, this blog explains better what I meant:

However, the W3C already has an alternative to Ajax: XForms. Now I’m sure not many people read weblogs from W3C members but I tend to do that — remember the being unique thing? Mark Birbeck is an invited member of the HTML Working Group and he has written two articles on how to implement Google Suggest using XForms and Google Maps (the basics). Of course, we can’t really style XForms or use it. Note that having a semantic solution for Ajax doesn’t make javascript more accessible; that is still a real world problem.

 

Now I’m not advocating for XForms in combination with XHTML2. XForms is the semantic counterpart to Ajax.

 

http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/05/ajax

Here is an article that goes into more detail: http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/03..._revisited.html

*************************************

 

 

ActiveX is not that insecure if users are smart and controls are *signed* (otherwise ie6 sp2 and ie7 do not let them execute)

Actually, it isn't secure compared to ajax or something similar.

1. It may work for well known companies like Yahoo, MSN, and Adobe, but signed code can be from wrong publishers and still it will have trust issues since once activex control is accepted it gains direct access to windows api. This is not an issue with javascript in webbrowsers since it is built to work without signing and thus puts security limitations on commands that can be sent through javascript.

Here is an example of activex issue that I'm talking about:

In addition, IE provides more information about the publisher of a program as well as whether the program is digitally signed. That’s not necessarily a big advantage for users, however, especially when dealing with publishers who are actively trying to deceive them. During the course of testing, I found one program that had been digitally signed using a legitimate certificate but phony information, and two others that had been signed using homemade certificates, including one from – no kidding – Joe’s-Software-Emporium.

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=109

 

2. Another problem that comes from direct access to windows api by activex controls is that if there is a security exploit like buffer-overflow then an attacker can use it to take over the computer of a user. This is mitigated with the use of javascript in popular webbrowsers and components build on popular activex based runtime like flashplayer because they are used by millions of users, therefore, these kind of exploits will be discovered and patched very quickly compared to custom developed activex control that would be used by comparatively much less users.

 

I hope that makes it more clearer.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Chuck

[Molson™]

Now instead of a clone debate, it's now a ajax or ocx debate.

[Guest X-Fusion]

Nah, its not a debate. Both Chuck and Lievre2mars were just showing people the comparisons between them both. No debate.

[Shagman]

I will debate anything anti-buzzen I just wonder if the other clones are gonna be prepared for the big exodus from buzzen. Because beleive me, people are not at buzzen because they like the service. They are at buzzen because at the time we had the early jump on the clone market. Wonder how much more mmm2cutes credit cards can handle.

[err0r]

don't pick on ajax too much i'm using it on tg's new layout lol

[Guest X-Fusion]

For a site, theres nothing bad about it.

[Guest XploziOn]

gonna but me stock in Buzzen, and try one of those get rich quick schemes.

Edited June 15, 2007 by XploziOn

[Guest X-Fusion]

<reserves comment>

[Josh`]

ajax is nice in moderation Too much and I can't stand it.