World: r3wp

Anyway, I'm giving ajax (or I don't know how to call it, because 
it's not ajax, it's just a httprequest) next try with this modified 
function:
	function getXMLHttpRequestObj(){
		var ajx;
		if(window.ActiveXObject) {
			if(_XML_ActiveX) {
				ajx = new ActiveXObject(_XML_ActiveX);
			} else {
				var versions = [
					"MSXML2.XMLHTTP",
					"Microsoft.XMLHTTP",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.7.0",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.6.0",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.5.0",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.4.0",
					"MSXML2.XMLHTTP.3.0"
				];
				for (var i = 0; i < versions.length; i++) {
					try {
						ajx = new ActiveXObject(versions[i]);
						if (ajx) {
							var _XML_ActiveX = versions[i];
							break;
						}
					}
					catch (e) {}
				}
			}
		}
		if(!ajx && typeof XMLHttpRequest != undefined) {
			try {
				ajx = new XMLHttpRequest();
			}
			catch (e) {
				return null;
			}
		} return ajx;
	}

(with test, that if the httpReqeust object is not available, I have 
to use old style -all page reload:-)

don't you think we need new windowing system for browsers? I think 
that view layout is not good model anymore ... it opens new OS window 
... but that will be regarded being a popup .... we imo definitely 
need rebol own windowing system ...

(it looks that the "nice" site killed my firefox after playing a 
little bit with it:-) eating about 200MB of my memory:-)))

http://www.google.com/ig

http://www.protopage.com/v2

nice. reminds me of SWiS.

yes .... the bad part  is, that they will claim how cool it is, no 
matter that it was done before ...

hope we get full-featured plug-in one day ...

its nice, visually.

Still seems like a step back from native windowing...

funny How I coded such a thing myself 5 years ago though (floating 
divs with title bar and internal scroll bars I guess its shadow effects 
make it worthy of a patent.  ;-)

I found the flash demos on this site http://www.zimbra.com/very 
impressive.

Zimbra is a sort of exchange clone.

The client can recognise phone numbers and bring up Skype to dial 
numbers, recognises addresses and popups yahoo maps etc.

the browser is becoming a very decent platform for developing applications

it is not browser which is capable - other technologies are ... but 
you are right - browser is a platform - it is a container ... it 
is a VM of a kind - you don't need .NET or .JAVA - you need native 
browser, which "contains" other technologies ... now let's have REBOL 
in a browser, our .REBOL :-)

Having everything wrapped in HTML (or XML or whatever markup-language) 
is not a good solution. I hate using applications inside a browser, 
because they're always slooooow. Native application clients are much 
better. Think reblets!

But if the reblets don't look as good as embedded html apps?

that's entirely up to the artist/coder doing the GUI

Sadly there are not a lot of rebol coders who can create a great 
looking gui.

yes, I think the amount of actual artistry among Rebol coders is 
too small

And then there's access -- being able to use Ajax apps without owning 
a computer...

which is why the rebol/plugin is going to be a very important marketing 
tool for rebol

the browser is becoming a very decent platform for developing applications

: )


Zimbra "looks" very good.  I have used it (in depth), it is not exactly 
what it appears.  But they do a very nice job.  They are in my top 
10 Issue Tracking systems.

Lastly, it is not exacly "AJAX" most of the cool UI you see is JAVA. 
(which in my mind is Rebol + Good browser blug-in supprt).

Flash is starting to catch up on the GUI part and they are much more 
light weight than Java, but I'm not sure how easy/hard they are to 
do

What they have been doing is moving this to AJAX bit by bit.  So 
it looks like thier old stuff, but functions about half as well.

Flash is very impressive:  http://threeminds.organic.com/2006/01/groowy_on_the_d.html


This is the best example I have seen of a Zimba like app in Flash 
(major backer is Mark Cuban).

Yawn.

Well, Javascript maybe rather than Java, but I get the idea.

Some decisions I will never understand. Turining "LiveScript" into 
"JavaScript", spelling it "R-E-B-O-L" but calling it "rebel". Like 
there isn't enough confusion in the world today :)

OK Bryan ;-)

I agree with Brian.  LiveScript was a better name, and reduced confusion. 
 I have never like Rebel, but really like the idea of Rebel.

There are so many exmaples of name space conflict where there does 
not need to be.


And on the topic of AJAX:	http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/21/ajax/index.php

You know how when something new comes along they give it a new word, 
and it really just does what the old thing did? 

For me this means we have to learn a new word, when in reality it 
is just the same thing. 


 AJAX is the "concept" that a browser can talk to the server and ask 
 for a little information, instead of loading the whole page again 
 and again and again! 


This is a Technology!?!  This is "all" that AJAX is, nothing more. 
 It is the "concept" that we are finally doing something the way 
it should have been done in the first place. 


I'm coming out with a new technology next year, I'm working with 
two doctors on it.  It is called SBYNH: 

Stop Banging Your Nuts with a Hammer. 


We expect quite a turn out.  We will have medical professionals on 
hand to explain the long term affects of failing to use SBYNH.

and obviously the surgery procedures already worked out to fix failed 
SBYNH  ;-)

(well, fixing is not the proper term I guess ;-)

In my first post about Rebel I meant to say "I never liked Rebol 
(the spelling), but like the idea behind the name.

Ruby is cute... (a little gem).

its funny how people constantly mixup java and javascript.   :-(

The great thing about SBYNH is that those who don't use it won't 
likely procreate.

25  3   3   1   4

(a puzzle)

I really don't understand all the buzz about Ajax. About 1998/1999 
a friend of mine and I made a remote Javascript debugger that used 
IFrames to update the client page without reloading. And we were 
able to remote debug the client side. The problem was, that we really 
drove the Javascript and DOM engines to the limit...

If someone is interested I can see if I find the old sources.

I guess it's really just because most people (me included) didn't 
know about it until recently. :-) And it's so nice, because (as Reichart 
said) it's for some things the way it should have been done in the 
first place. (it's nice for me, because in a small project I'm doing 
right now, I can skip almost all PHP coding, because I can do most 
stuff in Javascript and just let the PHP do the database handling)

Bear in mind that around 10% of all people do not have javascript 
enabled. That way be through choice, necessity, or following US government 
security advice.

Javascript usage stats: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Before clicking on a link to a web site that you are not familiar 
with or do not trust, take the precaution of disabling active content.
:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/tips/ST04-012.html


With PHP all the oomph is in the server , so it is under your control. 
As you cannot guarantee that JS will be available in the client if, 
extra steps are needed to ensure the website works without it -- 
even though it may work spectacularly better with it.

Good point.

But Ajax nees JS as well, right?

Yes.

Which means Ajax is not a universally appliable solution....At least 
not yet.