There is no such thing as "producing clean vs not clean" html unless you rely on other peoples widgets.
100% of my widgets are a UIBTemplate.. of my creation… I use GWTQuery (or jquery) to add/remove elements from my widgets. Thus, the HTML is exactly as clean as any HTML that any non-gwt application would use/produce. Roger On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:13:36 PM UTC+2, Shaun Tarves wrote: > There is no doubt that what GWT does, it's really good at. However, some > things that I've found GWT really isn't good at: > > 1) Producing clean HTML > > The structure of GWT "page views," especially with GWT widgets, is really > poor. The DOM gets bloated with lots of extra elements that are used for > focus and positioning. There are ways around this, but I feel like I'm > constantly fighting with GWT to generate HTML structure on my terms. > > For example, some of the most lauded constructs in GWT are the Cell-based > widgets (CellTable, and CellList, specifically). With CellLists, you are > stuck with divs. There's no way around it. So that means if you want to make > a good data model-backed list and render it as a UL with LIs, you're SOL. > > It's a false problem. GWT widgets are generally good as far as accessibility > is concerned, and let's put it clearly the only reason on having a "semantic" > DOM tree is for a11y. > > 2) The history mechanism is really powerful, but it's important to get your > URL structure correct from the start. The built-in history token parser is a > little too rigid in that it forces the first part of your URLs to be of the > form xxxx:yyy and then anything you want after that. When you dive deeper > into GWT, you'll understand the limitations of the PlaceHistoryMapper and why > you might want to avoid the tokenizers and write your own parser. > > On the plus side: it's pluggable. (it wasn't at first, you had to > re-implement the whole PlaceHistoryHander+PlaceHistoryMapper) > > 3) The GWT CSS compiler doesn't understand any CSS3 attributes. Also, > browser-specific attributes (such as the * hack for IE) throw warnings on > compiling. It's not really GWT's fault (it's a Java compiler issue), but be > aware nonetheless. > > You don't need browser-specific hacks, simply use "@if user.agent ie6 ie8". > The real issue is with selectors. FYI, gradients can now be used without > literal() in 2.5.0-rc2: > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5771 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/A-GepWmKMf0J. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
