The original written in this article is this post "http://community.9cbs.net/expert/topic/3335/3335603.xml" I hope everyone can read it carefully and will be gain.
In fact, the focus of debate I think it is not concentrated whether there is a new web standard, but is concentrated in replacing Table tag typography with Div CSS typography. Below is the view (red) I have organized and the anti-party side (red), as well as the view of this problem (blue).
Let's take a look at the point of view, support new web standards, or say DIV CSS type mode:
View point 1: Simple code structure, structure and expression separation.
Viewpoint 2: Easy to maintain, almost only if you need to change the CSS file of the site, you can revise the site.
Viewpoint 3: Save the space and site traffic of the site.
Viewpoint 4: Short development cycle, high reuse rate.
Viewpoint 5: It is easy to excessive XML.
Let's take a look at the views of the anti-party, maintain existing standards, or say Table tag layout:
View 1: HTML itself is standard, and it is already fine enough.
View 2: The new Web standard is high for developers, and there is no support for the development platform, and the development efficiency is low.
View 3: Div CSS typography code has high counted, not as easy to maintain in the description.
View 4: The standard has been practiced and has become the actual operational standard.
Then I will talk about the leak in the square point of view:
View point 1: Simple code structure, structure and expression separation.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
Is the new standard really simple structure? DIV control structure, CSS control expression is a good example. But how much advantage in this way in actual use? As far from the Div CSS typography, the advantage is not obvious. Since it is not an intuitive manifestation, it is a bit of a small understanding of the code.
Viewpoint 2: Easy to maintain, almost only if you need to change the CSS file of the site, you can revise the site.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
This is also a big selling point, very ideal website maintenance method - "You can change the site only if you need to change the Site CSS file." But this seems to be an ideal situation, the styles are complicated with trivial statements, and there is no standard writing to prevent this ideal implementation. Once the developer is replaced, the optical analysis CSS style sheet is enough to write a page from the new. It is also the case where the sponsor CEOCIO I have written in this discussion, I can't see the slight comment on the CSS style sheet on the page that meets the new Web standard. Read it makes it a decision. If you do not compute the actual display, and the page code is analyzed, I can't understand what kind of style description is described in CSS. For simple pages, you can also analyze this, if you really have a general complex page of those portions ... unimaginable maintenance disasters.
Viewpoint 3: Save the space and site traffic of the site.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
For this point, I didn't do test, and I didn't evaluate it. But I didn't see that there were statistics that clearly indicate that the new Web standard has sufficient advantages.
Viewpoint 4: Short development cycle, high reuse rate.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
Since the page is not very intuitive, for example, the Table tag is not very skilled, the Div CSS typography is like a nightmare. Is it a skilled developer to face the top hundred custom style sheet labels and how fast? I am just a conservative estimate because I have judged that the page of 163 or SOHU, if I use the Div CSS typography, perhaps it is too small. The Table Tag Typography has actually become a standard, just like the TCP / IP protocol architecture is the same as the network 7-layer protocol architecture, is practical and time-inspected. It should be said that there is still its ability. Viewpoint 5: It is easy to excessive XML.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
HTML and XML are one, and after years of development HTML is now bloated. In the modification of HTML initial standards, HTML is increasingly developed by our "hope". But when we realize that it is necessary to look back, HTML has been difficult to neglect. Who can guarantee that this is a big Internet does not turn the new web standard into another embarrassing standard? How can we say that it is easy to excessive XML without a practical and time?
But there are also many problems in the anti-party point of view:
View 1: HTML itself is standard, and it is already fine enough.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
HTML may be very streamlined at the initial time, and the expression ability is extremely high. However, in the process of continuous improvement, it is bloated, complicated, and the compatibility, and the compatibility will become a fatal injury of the old Web standard.
View 2: The new Web standard is high for developers, and there is no support for the development platform, and the development efficiency is low.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
I still remember the scene of writing HTML tags in the Word. On the night, many "WYSIW" page development tools have emerged in the rain, and the level of web developers is uneven. Most "primary developers" excessively rely on these tools. So do we need to take care of these "primary developers" and avoid changes? I am not good, what do you think?
View 3: Div CSS typography code has high counted, not as easy to maintain in the description.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
"Coupled" concept I heard in the software engineering in the concept of the computer. As far as the prior art is, whether the old Web standard is still high, it is inevitable, whether the new web standard code is high. Just like the Div CSS typography in front of me is completely maintenance nightmares brought about by bad development habits. I personally think that if there is a good note, the Div CSS typography has a great advantage for the Table tag typeset. This may be an embodiment of the new Web standard for the advantages of the old Web standard.
View 4: The old standard has been practiced, and has become the actual operational standard.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
The old standard is standard, indicating that there is a sharp point at the time. Nowadays, new standards should not be done with the old standard. But it does not deny that it does not mean it. For example, on data retrieval and expression capabilities, HTML has been stretched. The existence of things is correct, and there must be a driving force to make it produced. Although things are not necessarily correct, or it is itself completely wrong, at least one requires a need. If you look at the old standard with new standards, you can explain the problem. Below I summarize my point of view:
Quoted in the "Caribbean Pirate": "Code, perhaps more to be understood as a guide rather than the code ..." The debate for standard applications is actually not only here. For a long time, when a new standard is proposed, this controversy will appear when it can replace the old standard. Nothing is not good.
We should not standardize for standards, and should not give up the standard for habits. What do you say?
