W3C Web standards and Ajax recognized from Gmail

It is undeniable that W3C Web page standards were attractive when they first came out. At that time, due to the emergence of Firefox, it impacted the browser market, so that everyone set off a storm of Web Page standards for the sake of a small Fox. But what did it bring to designers? In this storm, I see the proliferation of technology at most. When chatting with some designers, the first sentence is: "Are your web pages standardized"? "Are there several errors on your Web page ". These words put a lot of pressure on our designers. Every time you update a webpage, you are afraid of minor errors caused by some minor changes. It seems that W3C has become a popular phenomenon. Just like Ajax fever some time ago. However, we should make rational analysis and when we should use these technologies. Some examples 1. misunderstanding between Div and table When we first came into contact with W3C, the first problem was to remove the traditional table layout and use Div + CSS for structure. This is the essence of Web Page standardization. But the problem arises. Most people misunderstand this and say "table is useless" "Your webpage still has table, out ". Otherwise, it would be a big mistake. W3C only requires no table layout. It does not mean that the table is not standard. Each web tag has its own meaning, not to say that a tag is completely abandoned. We should make good use of every label, and the table is not abandoned. Instead, the table only returns to his job-to display data, when you want to display a large amount of table data on the web page, you should use the table, so that you can spend the least time to achieve the best effect. If you must use <ul> <li> to simulate <Table>, you will spend too much time on CSS and add a lot of unnecessaryCodeAnd may not be able to achieve the desired effect. the most convincing site: Gmail, do you say it is not standard? No. Do you mean it's all Div + CSS. It is a div + CSS + table structure, and it makes good use of every webpage tag. Strictly speaking, Gmail does not follow the W3C XHTML 1.0 standard. First, its webpage does not use the transition definition of XHTML 1.0. Because it cannot be used, if you use this definition to design Gmail. It is estimated that the Program is not so good. Even if this standard definition is not used, it is the greatest success for its CSS to write such a good compatibility. 2. Do we really need Ajax? Gmail was the first to bring this topic out. At this time, many people began to study the mixture of this old technology. We are also beginning to flood, but Ajax is often not needed. To put it simply, for a common website, you must let the search engine find you to promote it, but the biggest problem with Ajax is that the search engine cannot judge the content in you. Even if your technology is mature and it is inconvenient to publicize what you have made, it is also a failure. Ajax is mainly used to improve the ease-of-use of applications, so it is often applied in background programs (of course, some operations can also be applied to the foreground ). To enhance the user-friendliness and ease of use of the program. Ajax implements the asynchronous update function, so that the webpage does not need to display more information synchronously. Effectively reduces the burden on the server. Asynchronous implementation is mainly due to Javascript, rather than XML. In this case, JavaScript can be asynchronous without XML. But without JavaScript, XML alone is useless. XML is only a data source. I have analyzed Gmail code for a long time, and it is strange to me that Gmail uses little XML. It mainly uses a lot of JavaScript. JavaScript and IFRAME are the most used in it, which solves JS rollback by using IFRAME and output mail, it directly outputs JavaScript code to an IFRAME page (you can view the Code directly), then re-constructs these JS arrays using JavaScript, and then outputs the code to the webpage. In fact, the JS array in the middle has been directly written to the page, so the XML used in this process is very small. Gmail uses the most asynchronous js method. As a result, Gmail is also a traditional one. All frameworks are using js to control this webpage. Instead of using many Ajax programs, it is silly to read XML on a single page. what we need to do is to make good use of Javascript in Ajax, while XML can only be used as necessary assistance. Well, the article is over. The above are all summative views on the problems I encountered in my work. I hope that you will not "go astray" because of these two technologies. It is important to rationally consider how our web pages can give these two technologies a reasonable place. Finally, if you want more competent friends to study Gmail, you will find a lot different from the so-called new technologies hyped by the industry. My comment on Gmail is a very successful traditional program that makes good use of the above two technologies.

~

It is undeniable that W3C Web page standards were attractive when they first came out. At that time, due to the emergence of Firefox, it impacted the browser market, so that everyone set off a storm of Web Page standards for the sake of a small Fox. But what did it bring to designers? In this storm, I see the proliferation of technology at most. When chatting with some designers, the first sentence is: "Are your web pages standardized"? "Are there several errors on your Web page ". These words put a lot of pressure on our designers. Every time you update a webpage, you are afraid of minor errors caused by some minor changes. It seems that W3C has become a popular phenomenon. Just like Ajax fever some time ago. However, we should make rational analysis and when we should use these technologies. Some examples 1. misunderstanding between Div and table When we first came into contact with W3C, the first problem was to remove the traditional table layout and use Div + CSS for structure. This is the essence of Web Page standardization. But the problem arises. Most people misunderstand this and say "table is useless" "Your webpage still has table, out ". Otherwise, it would be a big mistake. W3C only requires no table layout. It does not mean that the table is not standard. Each web tag has its own meaning, not to say that a tag is completely abandoned. We should make good use of every label, and the table is not abandoned. Instead, the table only returns to his job-to display data, when you want to display a large amount of table data on the web page, you should use the table, so that you can spend the least time to achieve the best effect. If you must use <ul> <li> to simulate <Table>, you will spend too much time on CSS and add a lot of unnecessary code, it may not be able to achieve the desired effect. the most convincing site: Gmail, do you say it is not standard? No. Do you mean it's all Div + CSS. It is a div + CSS + table structure, and it makes good use of every webpage tag. Strictly speaking, Gmail does not follow the W3C XHTML 1.0 standard. First, its webpage does not use the transition definition of XHTML 1.0. Because it cannot be used, if you use this definition to design Gmail. It is estimated that you will not see such an outstanding program. Even if this standard definition is not used, it is the greatest success for its CSS to write such a good compatibility. 2. Do we really need Ajax? Gmail was the first to bring this topic out. At this time, many people began to study the mixture of this old technology. We are also beginning to flood, but Ajax is often not needed. To put it simply, for a common website, you must let the search engine find you to promote it, but the biggest problem with Ajax is that the search engine cannot judge the content in you. Even if your technology is mature and it is inconvenient to publicize what you have made, it is also a failure. Ajax is mainly used to improve the ease-of-use of applications, so it is often applied in background programs (of course, some operations can also be applied to the foreground ). To enhance the user-friendliness and ease of use of the program. Ajax implements the asynchronous update function, so that the webpage does not need to display more information synchronously. Effectively reduces the burden on the server. Asynchronous implementation is mainly due to Javascript, rather than XML. In this case, JavaScript can be asynchronous without XML. But without JavaScript, XML alone is useless. XML is only a data source. I have analyzed Gmail code for a long time, and it is strange to me that Gmail uses little XML. It mainly uses a lot of JavaScript. JavaScript and IFRAME are the most used in it, which solves JS rollback by using IFRAME and output mail, it directly outputs JavaScript code to an IFRAME page (you can view the Code directly), then re-constructs these JS arrays using JavaScript, and then outputs the code to the webpage. In fact, the JS array in the middle has been directly written to the page, so the XML used in this process is very small. Gmail uses the most asynchronous js method. As a result, Gmail is also a traditional one. All frameworks are using js to control this webpage. Instead of using many Ajax programs, it is silly to read XML on a single page. what we need to do is to make good use of Javascript in Ajax, while XML can only be used as necessary assistance. well, the article is over. The above are some summative views on the problems I encountered in my work. I hope that you will not "go astray" because of these two technologies. It is important to rationally consider how our web pages can give these two technologies a reasonable place. Finally, if you want more competent friends to study Gmail, you will find a lot different from the so-called new technologies hyped by the industry. my comment on Gmail is a very successful traditional program that makes good use of the above two technologies.