Chad Perrin wrote:
As Brion Vibber and Christopher Budnick pointed out, each in his own
way, I think the concern here is that you're adding needed functionality
in a manner that makes good sense -- and that you're not throwing AJAX
at it just because AJAX is buzzword-compliant. I, for one, am perfectly
happy with unadorned static (X)HTML when it solves the problem quickly,
easily, and fully. It runs faster and imposes less server load, too.
Where AJAX provides actual measurable benefits, though, it's certainly
an option to explore without prejudice.
Although I largely agree with you (especially the "buzzword-compliant"
bit, heh!), I must state that AJAX often does run faster and save server
load. Imagine there was an AJAX-y way of adding a language link to an
existing article. This is just an example. In the traditional way, you
have to (1) load up the edit page, (2) submit it, and (3) re-render the
article page. Even a separate mechanism to add language tags would have
the UI to enter the tag *and* update the page in-place, client-side.
Only the submission step would be an actual server hit.