Non-standard web standards

Introduction:
A group of beginners who will use a poor table layout laugh at those who have no idea about creating web pages; A group of table layout advocates who think that the table layout is omnipotent laugh at the Group of beginners who use the bad table layout; the so-called web standard designers who just tried to replace the tables on several pages with divs laughed at the table layout designers who were not holding the table layout; A group of high-profile web-standard designers who have finally pasted the W3C verification through HTML website icon on their websites laugh at this group and think that "DIV + CSS" is the web standard. beginner in web standard design; however, when we put our Web pages in different browsers, we found that we were all ridiculed by "Web standard design ......

Body:
Standard: The criterion for measuring things. E. g.: However, the mechanical system is not slightly wide, and the rest of the police are used as the standard. -- Qing • Fang BA's "Prison note"
Standard: An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion.

Both Chinese and foreign countries have similar interpretations of the standard term. Standard is a criterion. The words prefixed with "standard" must comply with this rule. For example:
Standard atmospheric pressure: refers to the atmospheric pressure at a sea level at a latitude of 45 ° and at a temperature of 0 °C, equivalent to the pressure produced by a 76 cm high water silver column.
Standard photo (official portrait): indicates a person's front half-length bareheaded photo.
Therefore, the web standard design prefixed with "standard" must also have a measurement criterion. However, we found that the so-called standards for measuring whether web standards do not exist, at least not yet. If there is no measurement criterion, why is the standard based on words?

Recommendation standards are not strictly standards
When you try to find "What is web standards" on the Internet, most of the information you find is the article "What is web standards", a pioneer in introducing web standards to China. Although the "Recommendations" of various components follow the standards, those are only the W3C "recommendations follow" standards. We all know that W3C standards are not mandatory standards, so first-class companies like Microsoft who like "selling standards" do not completely buy W3C accounts. Therefore, the so-called "recommendation standards" are not comprehensive and strict certification standards in the strict sense.

Note: Although W3C recommendation standards are not strict standards, we can never ignore them. Because they are indeed very instructive. And we are very pleased to see that although IE7 retains some strange parsing methods of IE6 for forward compatibility, it is gradually following these standards. Therefore, these standards are now "recommended to follow standards", but in the near future it is very likely to become a true standard, at that time is the golden age of "unified web standards. So it is time for friends who have not read the following articles.

W3C recommends a list of standard web documents:

• XML: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)
• XHTML: XHTML defaults 0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
• DOM: W3C DOM specification
• CSS: Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 CSS2 Specification ver.12-May-1998
• Script: ECMAScriptLanguage Specification

Web standards cannot be validated
We still have many problems, even if we take those "recommendations follow standards" as standards for the time being. For example, how can we verify that our pages comply with the "Recommended Standards? Indeed, we have verification tools, but are the verification results correct? An important part of web standards is to use them according to the semantics of tags. For example, a table is used to present table data, rather than to split a document (that is, the layout in general ). However, some pages that use the table layout can also pass the verification tool. Therefore, the verification results of those verification tools can only be used as a reference.

Semantics is a multi-choice question
This also raises some problems when talking about the semantics of tags. Because when we decide which tag to use, we will find that we are faced with multiple-choice questions rather than single-choice questions. In some cases, multiple tags are semantic-compliant. Here is a simple example:
What labels should you use to pack "Name? Label? Span? In fact, no matter which one is used, it is consistent with their respective semantics. This "Multi-choice question" makes web standards seem a bit obscure.

The tree is quiet
Even if the above problems are no longer the problem, we still have a big problem-different browsers do not provide uniform support for web standards. It is also the environment where such standards are not uniform that makes the web standards highly accessible and out of reach. On the Forum, people call "spam FF", "spam IE7", and "spam IE6" every day "...... Throughout the world, there are only two types of creatures that can survive-changing the environment to adapt to their own development, such as human beings, and changing themselves to adapt to the environment development, such as chameleon. When we cannot change the world, change ourselves to adapt to the changed world.

Limited resources
The Web standards are not standard. At least there are no uniform standards, but the Web page still needs to be done, and the project still needs to catch up. What we can do is to make reasonable use of the limited resources at hand and strive to do the best. This sentence contains two meanings: limited resources and hard work.

Limited resources:
When you are lying in the ivory tower and trying to add W3C certification tags to your personal website, you are understandable because your resources are so adequate, time, youth, no project time, no customer ultimatum. But when you are actually doing business projects, you will find that the resources we can use are limited. Human resources, material resources, and time resources are too limited. When you have the right to allocate these resources, you will find the responsibility for allocating these resources. Our project will never waste valuable resources for that W3C authentication tag.

To do this:
However, limited resources are definitely not an excuse for abuse. In fact, our project attaches great importance to quality. The Project Manager's conclusion "quality is the foundation of the project" has reached a consensus in our team. We have always placed more than 1/5 of the project's testing resources for the testing department. (The analysis design process is more than 3/5, the code is less than coding1/5, and the rest are for the Test Department ).
But what exactly do we need to do? In fact, it is not without reference. When you look at Andy Budd's "Style Guide example", we can see some clues about how to solve this problem internationally. He mentioned the Browser Support concept in summary 1.4. Then he proposed different levels of support for different browsers:

• Target-Most popular browsers at present. Everything must work as intended
• Supported-Old but popular browser. All content and functionality must work with minimal degradation.
• Partially supported-Old and buggy browsers. Not supported but not officially unsupported. Content and functionality must work. Degradation must be graceful and shocould not obscure content.
• Unsupported-Buggy and unsupported browsers. Advice current users to upgrade.

I think this is the right way. Select a mainstream browser, and then implement Target support for the mainstream browser, while support for the second browser for Supported. In some earlier versions of browsers, Partially Supported is not even taken care. In this way, the website can be normally browsed by the visitor as much as possible. Of course, you need to decide which browsers and versions are supported by Target Based on the project group. For example, we recently used a Japanese parent company's internal B/S system. Because we know the computer software configurations of the users on their side, we made the following browser support definitions:
IE7 +: Target
IE6 +: Supported
FF: Partially Supported
Other: Partially Supported or Unsupported

With the support form of this browser, we can focus on the screen. It is not a waste of time to make all browsers support them normally (and it is only ideal for all browsers ).

Is Web standards difficult?
 
The person who did not come in said: very difficult!
The person standing on the door frame said: But that's all.
People standing in the door said: there is still a long way to go for the web standard ......

Postscript:
When I started this name, I knew it would be bombarded by many people. It has long been a "Invincible face" skill. No, no, no. Because it is your message, your arguments, and your discussions that allow the web standard to go further and flat.

Keyword: The web standard is not standard. Why should we use the web standard design, w3cweb standard, web2.0 standard, web standard, web Standard css, web standard table, web Standard and website reconstruction, and web Standard layout, web Standard tutorials, web standard verification, benefits of web standards, web standard websites, what are web standards, design with web standards, website layout is recorded based on web Standard website design guidelines, design website reconstruction and Application web standards