DOM Scripting comments: What’s in a name? http://domscripting.com/blog/display/57 Christian Heilmann explains why the term DHTML has too much baggage. en Michael Moncur http://domscripting.com/blog/display.php/57#comment299 Yeah, I think Google talked me into it. I’m going to relegate "DHTML" to a sidebar when I edit those chapters…

]]> Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:14:17 GMT Jeremy Keith http://domscripting.com/blog/display.php/57#comment298 Michael, that last point you make is a very important one. Google never seems to forget. You’re right: there are a lot of bad resources out there that are discoverable by googling for "DHTML". For that reason alone, it seems like a good idea to abandon the term and use something else for modern, standards-based scripting.

]]> Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:18:13 GMT Michael Moncur http://domscripting.com/blog/display.php/57#comment297 I’m in the process of updating "Teach Yourself JavaScript in 24 Hours" and I’m of two minds about this: First of all, I agree completely that DHTML started out meaning something horrid (two incompatible somethings horrid, to be precise) and that there are much better ways to do things now.

On the other hand, "DHTML" has been the term for "JavaScript that does something more dynamic than just playing with forms" for a while, and the 2002 edition of the book called that "DHTML" despite using the W3C DOM exclusively.

At the moment, we still have "DHTML" in the outline in a few places, although the chapters in question also talk about DOM Scripting (and about best practices and unobtrusiveness.)

Then again, a quick Google search for "DHTML" suggests that I should probably eliminate the term altogether. Search engines that are obsessed with old, "authoritative" sites are one very good reason for ditching the old terms. I’d much rather my readers went to the sites that come up when I search for "DOM Scripting"…

]]> Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:44:51 GMT