Rather than trying to rehabilitate and redefine DHTML, I think it’s time we ditched the term entirely.
Secondly, just what the heck is DHTML supposed to mean anyway? It’s a buzzword coined by browser makers who wanted to get us using the latest technology. I’m sure that calling something “dynamic HTML” is very useful from a marketing perspective, but it’s fairly pointless as a description.
Just look at some of the definitions of DHTML floating around out there:
“The next generation of HTML, the language that specifies exactly how text and images will be displayed on a web page. Dynamic HTML, developed by Netscape and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), is based entirely on industry-standard HTML and Java.”
Now that’s just plain wrong.
We need a term that doesn’t confuse. Something descriptive that doesn’t sound like an off-shoot of HTML.
We could still use DHTML in its historical context to refer to old-school browser-based forked code of the late nineties. But seeing as we’re doing web development in a new, standards-based way, let’s use a new term to describe it. For example:
“I used to code DHTML but I find DOM Scripting so much easier.”
Take this meme. May it serve you well.