Web page standards and AJAX knowledge from Gmail

ajax|w3c| Standard | Web page

There is no denying that the standards of the Web-site are really appealing when they come out. At that time because of the emergence of Firefox, the impact of the browser market, so that everyone in order to a small fox, and set off a web standards of the storm, but for designers to bring what? In this storm I see the most is the proliferation of technology.

And some designer chat, the first sentence asked, "Your Web page standardization", "your Web page has several errors." Virtually all these words bring a lot of pressure on US designer. Every time you update a Web page, you're scared because a few minor changes are causing some minor bugs. It seems that the consortium has become a sought-after phenomenon. Just like the Ajax heat of the previous period. But we should be more rational analysis, when we should use these technologies.

Let me give you some examples

The misunderstanding between 1.DIV and table

When we first came into contact with the consortium, the problem was to get rid of the traditional table layout and use DIV+CSS to do the structure. This is the essence of Web page standardization. But the problem, most people because of this and misunderstood that "table is not used" "you have a page and a table, out of". In fact, if you think so, then you are wrong. The consortium simply requires no table layout and does not say that the table is not standard.

Every web tag has its meaning, not that it completely abandons a label. We should make good use of each label, table is not abandoned, the opposite table is just back to his job---used to display data, when you want to display a large number of tabular data on the page, you should use table, so you can spend the least time to achieve the best results. If you must use

To simulate, but you will spend too much time on the CSS, add a lot of extra code, and not necessarily to achieve the desired effect.

Most persuasive site: GMail You say it is not standard? No, you say it's all div+css, and it's not. It is a div+css+table structure, and it is reasonable to make use of each page tag. Strictly speaking, Gmail did not follow the XHTML 1.0 standard. First, its web page does not use the transition definition of XHTML 1.0. Because it has no way to use, if use this definition to design gmail. It is estimated that no one can see such a good program. Even if this standard definition is not used, it is one of the greatest successes that CSS can write such good compatibility.

2.Ajax do we really need

The first thing to bring out this topic is Gmail, where a lot of people began to study the hybrid of the old technology. It's also starting to flood, but most of the time we don't need Ajax. Simply put, for a common site, you have to advertise must let search engine to find you, but the biggest problem of Ajax is that search engines can not judge your content. Even if your technology is so mature, it is a failure to make things that are not convenient to advertise.

Ajax is mainly to improve the ease of use of the program, so many times will be applied in the background program (of course, part of the operation can also be applied to the foreground). To enhance the humanization of the program, as well as ease of use.

Ajax is primarily the ability to implement asynchronous updates so that Web pages do not have to be synchronized to display more information. Effectively reduce the burden on the server. The main reason for asynchronous implementation is JavaScript, not XML. Why do you say that no xml,javascript can also be implemented asynchronously. But without JavaScript, it's useless to have XML. XML is just as a source of data. I've analyzed Gmail's code for a long time, and I'm surprised that Gmail uses XML in very few places. It mainly uses a lot of JavaScript. The most used is JavaScript and IFRAME, it solves the JS back by the IFRAME, output mail, it directly output the JavaScript code to an IFRAME inside the page (see the code directly can see), The JS arrays are then reconstructed using JavaScript and then exported to the Web page. The middle of the JS array is actually written directly to the page, such a process to use less XML. The whole Gmail uses the most is the asynchronous JS way. So Gmail is also a tradition, is the framework in the use of JS control of this page. Instead of the many AJAX programs we have now, one page is full of reading XML, and that's a stupid way to do it.

All we have to do is take advantage of the Javascript inside Ajax, and XML can only be a necessary aid.

Oh, the article is over, these are the problems I have encountered in the work of some concluding observations. I hope we do not "go astray" because of these two technologies, it is important to think rationally about how our web pages give these two technologies a reasonable position.

Finally, want to have the ability of friends to study more Gmail, you will find many and the industry hype of the so-called new technology has many discrepancies.

My evaluation of Gmail is a very successful traditional program that utilizes the above two points of technology.