<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Semantics of &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;Reload&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/2005/12/06/the-semantics-of-reload/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/2005/12/06/the-semantics-of-reload/</link>
	<description>Philip Jacob's web page</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:59:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/2005/12/06/the-semantics-of-reload/comment-page-1/#comment-1498</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/?p=82#comment-1498</guid>
		<description>&quot;If you view the browser as something that can or should interact with web applications, then maybe this starts to make a little more sense in those terms. &quot;

Good point.  I think it&#039;s easy to forget this might happen someday because attempts to have the browser actually undersatnd the content (e.g. Microsoft&#039;s SmartTags and Google&#039;s AutoLink) have largely been met with suspicion if not derision.  The closest I think its come to interacting has been via frames (where you can, in fact, reload part of a page), and imperfect implementations have led that to be blacklisted by the UI community.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If you view the browser as something that can or should interact with web applications, then maybe this starts to make a little more sense in those terms. &#8221;</p>
<p>Good point.  I think it&#8217;s easy to forget this might happen someday because attempts to have the browser actually undersatnd the content (e.g. Microsoft&#8217;s SmartTags and Google&#8217;s AutoLink) have largely been met with suspicion if not derision.  The closest I think its come to interacting has been via frames (where you can, in fact, reload part of a page), and imperfect implementations have led that to be blacklisted by the UI community.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Jacob</title>
		<link>http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/2005/12/06/the-semantics-of-reload/comment-page-1/#comment-1496</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Jacob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/?p=82#comment-1496</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s nothing to stop you from putting a &quot;Back&quot; button on every page of the web either.  

Right now, we rely on hokey polling mechanisms for reloading data.  I can imagine cases where having the ability to refresh data would be advantageous, such as auction sites like eBay.  And modern browsers don&#039;t have a way to take advantage of this.

I&#039;m not suggesting that we should get rid of the back button and your evidence of getting around faulty AJAX operations is a good example of why we should avoid doing this.  

If you view the browser strictly as a HTTP user agent, there&#039;s no way that you would be convinced by the point I was making.  If you view the browser as something that can or should interact with web applications, then maybe this starts to make a little more sense in those terms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s nothing to stop you from putting a &#8220;Back&#8221; button on every page of the web either.  </p>
<p>Right now, we rely on hokey polling mechanisms for reloading data.  I can imagine cases where having the ability to refresh data would be advantageous, such as auction sites like eBay.  And modern browsers don&#8217;t have a way to take advantage of this.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not suggesting that we should get rid of the back button and your evidence of getting around faulty AJAX operations is a good example of why we should avoid doing this.  </p>
<p>If you view the browser strictly as a HTTP user agent, there&#8217;s no way that you would be convinced by the point I was making.  If you view the browser as something that can or should interact with web applications, then maybe this starts to make a little more sense in those terms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/2005/12/06/the-semantics-of-reload/comment-page-1/#comment-1495</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/?p=82#comment-1495</guid>
		<description>I fail to see how the reload button has become less useful because of AJAX.  I would think its become more useful, as it is the easiest way to deal with faulty AJAX operations.  There&#039;s nothing stopping someone from putting a refresh button on the page themselves.  If that behavior became common then reload would be seen as a safety/override switch just like the reset button on some computers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I fail to see how the reload button has become less useful because of AJAX.  I would think its become more useful, as it is the easiest way to deal with faulty AJAX operations.  There&#8217;s nothing stopping someone from putting a refresh button on the page themselves.  If that behavior became common then reload would be seen as a safety/override switch just like the reset button on some computers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

