L
Lee C.
Juan,
You clearly don't understand, or have not thought about *why* the ASP.NET
team gave us separate places for "design"/content (.aspx files) and
"procedure"/code (.aspx.vb). The ability to separate the 2 was a huge
feature for ASP.NET, from classic ASP.
Even though the particular content affected by the bug I found is not
*visible* Web browser content, it is content none-the-less. Thus, its
wiring belongs in the content file (.aspx)--not the code file (.aspx.vb).
Sure, I could throw in some classic ASP style, and put a script element in
my .aspx page to keep the wiring in the realm of the designer, but that
changes nothing, because it's still programming, which should be done by
programmers in the same place as every other line of programming in my site:
the .aspx.vb pages. Just as badly, it means I'm achieving my I18N wiring in
multiple ways, instead of being consistent.
By everything else, I meant all other I18N resource "wirings". (But, I take
pride in how "light" my .aspx.vb files are--and how clean my .aspx files
are, too.) You are obviously fine with having the designer(s) to set up and
manage *most* of the I18N wirings, *and* having programmers to do some, too,
(as they should not be doing) since bugs are not bugs for you if there is a
workaround that violates good design practices and principles. I'm not fine
with that.
Are you really an ASP.NET MVP? (Classic ASP, maybe?)
, Lee
You clearly don't understand, or have not thought about *why* the ASP.NET
team gave us separate places for "design"/content (.aspx files) and
"procedure"/code (.aspx.vb). The ability to separate the 2 was a huge
feature for ASP.NET, from classic ASP.
Even though the particular content affected by the bug I found is not
*visible* Web browser content, it is content none-the-less. Thus, its
wiring belongs in the content file (.aspx)--not the code file (.aspx.vb).
Sure, I could throw in some classic ASP style, and put a script element in
my .aspx page to keep the wiring in the realm of the designer, but that
changes nothing, because it's still programming, which should be done by
programmers in the same place as every other line of programming in my site:
the .aspx.vb pages. Just as badly, it means I'm achieving my I18N wiring in
multiple ways, instead of being consistent.
By everything else, I meant all other I18N resource "wirings". (But, I take
pride in how "light" my .aspx.vb files are--and how clean my .aspx files
are, too.) You are obviously fine with having the designer(s) to set up and
manage *most* of the I18N wirings, *and* having programmers to do some, too,
(as they should not be doing) since bugs are not bugs for you if there is a
workaround that violates good design practices and principles. I'm not fine
with that.
Are you really an ASP.NET MVP? (Classic ASP, maybe?)
, Lee
Juan T. Llibre said:re:
!> Setting it programmatically is an incorrect implementation
!> when everything else on my page is set declaratively.
Is everything else on your pages set declaratively ?
Think about that for a second.
Why do we have inline scripts and code-behind, if "everything else is set
declaratively" ?
In any case, we've certainly had enough of the "I think that..." back and
forth.
Let's pause this discussion until the "bug" you reported is explained by
the VS Dev team, OK ?
I, definitely, want to see what their explanation is.
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=353879
Lee C. said:Correct implementation? What do you mean by that?
I stated earlier on that I worked around it. It's still a bug. Setting
it programmatically is an incorrect implementation when everything else
on my page is set declaratively. Microsoft offered declarative
(explicit) expressions, and I want to use them--anywhere and everywhere I
choose in accordance with how they are stated to work. When I find one
that doesn't work, it's a bug; it's not a case of my doing something
incorrectly. I love Microsoft Visual Studio 2008; but, I won't tolerate
bugs, or suck them up as, "Oh, I must be doing it wrong since it doesn't
work--even though it should."
, Lee
Juan T. Llibre said:re:
!> ASP.NET should make it easy for me--and, it does,
!> but there is a bug in the implementation.
The fact that you *can* set xml:lang programmatically, and that you
*did* set it that way,
as I did, should tell you that it isn't much of a bug, but a question of
using the correct implementation.
But, again, please let us know what the reply to your bug report is.
Juan,
My use of language and culture in ASP.Net is a bit different than most.
I have registered numerous country-code-specific domains (mysite.ca,
mysite.co.uk, mysite.com.au, etc.), which resolve to a singular
"ASP.Net Web Site". Nothing new there. However, I'm not doing the
ASP.Net usual of letting the user agent (HTTP header 'accept-language')
determine which language visitors get; I have the country-code TLD
drive it. Also, it's not just the language of my content that varies
by cc TLD, it's the content, too; but, lang attributes play a critical
role in informing user agents (including search engine bots) for what
"country" my content is aimed.
I have already found, first-hand, that the better of the major search
engines use the cc TLD *and* the HTML lang/xml:lang to determine
whether a domain's documents (mysite.com.au/my-document.aspx) should
show up when a searcher searches with the 'Only from Australia'
checkbox checked on Live.com, for example.
I'm not setting lang attributes for fun; I'm doing it to correct search
engine results. ASP.NET should make it easy for me--and, it does, but
there is a bug in the implementation.
I appreciate your interest and effort to help.
, Lee
re:
!> versus the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish: telling user
agents who our
!> intended audiences is, by language, as best we can...which is why
I'm *also*
!> setting lang in the HTTP headers and in page meta tags
What ? You don't set a language/culture in web.config, too ?
There's a use for overkill ! ( only kidding... )
I don't see too clearly the purpose of declaring a single language for
a web page.
I do see a use for declaring specific language attributes in a
*collection* of xml documents,
so that individual documents can be parsed for a particular language
content.
But, ymmv...
I'd still be interested in knowing what the reply is to your bug
report.
I bet you'll get back : "That's by design". <g>
Don't forget to let us all know what happens with that, OK ?
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Juan,
In theory, I like your idea of investigating "the standard"; but, in
practice it has serious problems, as it often does. First, you are
referring to the XML standard, which is not as appropriate as HTML
and XHTML standards. Second, none of them are crystal clear on best
practices for I18N. There is a lot of *legal* (by the standard)
syntax, that makes no sense, or makes some sense without being
clearly best. The W3C site often states something to the effect of,
"some are doing this, some are doing that, on your own site, at least
do something and only time will tell what is best."
Check out these fine examples, which mirror my syntax, on the W3C
site.
Internationalization Best Practices: Specifying Language in XHTML &
HTML Content
http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040429.092928424
Tutorial: Declaring Language in XHTML and HTML (Draft)
http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/language-decl/en/slides/Slide0160.html
Juan, you wrote:
But, it seems to me that setting xml:lang for the html tag's
*attribute* values is unneeded, since they must
be in English, and they must be attributes set to a language
identifier, as defined by IETF RFC 4646
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt).
You're not setting it for "the tag's *attribute*", you're setting it
for the *contents*, all contents, of the element (unless overridden
by a sub-setting), which makes perfect sense so that I don't have to
set it individually on every child element--that is the power of a
hierarchy! You seem to be focused on the technical, with some
misunderstanding, versus the spirit of what we're trying to
accomplish: telling user agents who our intended audiences is, by
language, as best we can...which is why I'm *also* setting lang in
the HTTP headers and in page meta tags.
, Lee
re:
!> I found an MSDN document that explains why what I'm trying to do
should work
Lee,
From :
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/
"A special attribute named xml:lang may be inserted in documents to
specify the
language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in
an XML document."
If anything, I can see xml:lang being declared for specific content
values, for example :
<p xml:lang="en-GB">What colour is it?</p>
<p xml:lang="en-US">What color is it?</p>
Then, an xml parser could identify regional US and British spellings
but, given that *all* the attribute values
must be in English in an html doc, what would be the purpose of
declaring xml:lang for the html markup ?
A similar explanation is given here :
http://www.simonstl.com/xmlprim/xmlupdate/atts.html
---000---
<SECTION>
<DESCRIPTION xml:lang="en">
Caesar begins by describing the geography of Gaul.
</DESCRIPTION>
<QUOTE xml:lang="la">
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae,
aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli
appellantur.
</QUOTE>
---000---
That's perfectly good usage for xml:lang, as a parser could
selectively identify content in different languages.
But, it seems to me that setting xml:lang for the html tag's
*attribute* values is unneeded, since they must
be in English, and they must be attributes set to a language
identifier, as defined by IETF RFC 4646
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt).
So, I think that requisite pretty well establishes the futility
of setting xml:lang for all the attributes in an html document.
If anything, it seems that the xml:lang attribute is included in the
html server tag for compatibility purposes, or perhaps out of
ignorance.
If there's a need to identify that the *contents* of a particular
markup tag are in a
specific language, that identification can be included in the tag
itself, for example :
<div lang="MX-es" xml:lang="MX-es">
Algo de contenido en español mejicano.
</div>
That makes a lot more sense than setting xml:lang for the attribute
values in the html tag.
I found an MSDN document that explains why what I'm trying to do
should work.
ASP.NET Web Server Controls Overview
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zsyt68f1.aspx
Note the distinction between HTML Server Controls and Web Server
Controls in the document. Also, note the explanation
of "pass-through" attributes for HTML Server Controls.
Two quotes that sum it up:
1. Any HTML element on a page can be converted to an HTML server
control by adding the attribute runat="server".
2. You can add any attributes you need to an HTML server control
and the page framework will render them without
any change in functionality.
, Lee
Juan,
I appreciate your trying to help, but you're wrong, and you are
the one who is confused. :]
I am *not* disputing that when inserted programmatically, the
xml:lang attribute renders to the browser. I did just
that as a work around (right after I discovered this bug); but, I
should not have to.
I am *not* confusing html attributes with runat="server"
attributes, as you call them. Using your logic, none of the
declarative (html) attributes should render to the browser after I
add the runat="server" in ASP.NET; yet all of them
(xmlns, lang, and dir) do--except xml:lang.
I started with an html element with 4 attributes (xmlns, lang,
xml:lang, and dir) all set declaratively. With *no*
5th attribute of runat="server", all 4 attributes render. If I
add the 5th attribute of runat="server", which does
not and should not render, I no longer get all 4 attributes that
should render (xmlns, lang, xml:lang, and dir), I
only get 3 (xmlns, lang, and dir). My logic says I should get 4,
your says I should get 3? It would be 4 or 0, and
4 is right. Not 0...and not 3.
When I add runat="server", it does not magically make the xml:lang
attribute a server-side attribute, while keeping
the other three attributes as "html" attributes. All four are
still "html" attributes--which should render.
I think the simplification of my example may be confusing you. It
is odd that, in my example, I set runat="server"
but do not have any server-side attributes. (I have all 4 as
literal strings, for simplicity of an example.) Well,
in my real-world use, I do have server-side attributes, which I
want set declaratively (no code-beside and no
script). I have:
<html runat="server" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="<%$ Resources:GlobalLang, ContentAudienceLanguage %>"
lang="<%$ Resources:GlobalLang, ContentAudienceLanguage %>"
dir="ltr">
Both of those declarative explicit localization expressions should
work without my having to write any more
"procedural" (code-beside) code or script. It actually does work
fine for the lang attribute--as it should; but not
for the xml:lang attribute--***which is a bug***.
, Lee
re:
!> I think you are misunderstanding, Juan.
Well, I think you are misunderstanding *me*.
re:
!> I had the xml:lang attribute in the html tag (declaratively),
like this:
...and it renders to the browser, as it should.
Yes, because it's standard html.
re:
!> If I simply add runat="server"
That declares the control to run server side.
For any attribute to be programmed server-side you need a script,
just as you need a script to modify any server control's
attributes.
Did you run the sample page I sent ?
It iterates throught the attributes for the html server control,
and shows that the xml:lang attribute *is* added
programmatically.
re:
!> If I simply add runat="server", leaving in the xml:lang
attribute that
!> renders without runat="server", all of the (declarative)
attributes are
!> rendered to the browser--except the xml:lang attribute! That
is a bug.
I think you're confusing html attributes with runat="server"
attributes.
Html attributes can be inserted in normal html.
Server-side attributes must be inserted in code.
Maybe I'm not explaining this as well as I should.
Try to get someone else's opinion on this matter, if you don't
accept mine.
I think you are misunderstanding, Juan. I had the xml:lang
attribute in the html tag (declaratively), like this:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-US"
lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
...and it renders to the browser, as it should.
If I simply add runat="server", leaving in the xml:lang
attribute that renders without runat="server", all of the
(declarative) attributes are rendered to the browser--except the
xml:lang attribute! That is a bug.
<html runat="server" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
Cordially,
Lee
Here's a full example which shows that the xml:lang attribute
is added programmatically :
attributes.aspx:
----------------------
<%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="True" %>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" runat="server"
id="Myid" >
<script language="C#" runat="server">
void Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Myid.Attributes.Add("xml:lang", "es");
Message.InnerHtml = "<h4>The html control attributes collection
contains:</h4>";
IEnumerator keys = Myid.Attributes.Keys.GetEnumerator();
while (keys.MoveNext())
{
String key = (String)keys.Current;
Message.InnerHtml += key + "=" + Myid.Attributes[key] + "<br
/>";
}
}
</script>
<head id="Head1" runat="server">
<title>The html control attributes collection</title>
</head>
<body>
<form id="Form1" runat="server">
<h3>HtmlControl Attribute Collection Example</h3>
<br />
<span id="Message" enableviewstate="false" runat="server" />
</form>
</body>
</html>
----------------
I don't think it's a bug to have to add an attribute
programmatically,
because the runat="server" tag only *declares* the html control
as a programmable control.
To actually program it, you must use a script.
Thanks, Juan.
I already added similar code to a page event in my masterpage
code-beside.
elHtml.Attributes.Add("xml:lang",
Resources.GlobalLang.ContentAudienceLanguage)
To me, that is a temporary workaround. I still want to
understand whether the "eating" of the attribute I
originally
posted about is a bug, or if this is actually happening for a
reason.
Cordially,
Lee
Hi, Lee.
re:
!> <html runat="server" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
!> no xml:lang attribute is rendered to the browser!
!> Remove the runat="server", and, voila, the xml:lang
attribute is rendered.
Try this :
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" runat="server"
id="someID">
<script runat="server">
someID.Attributes("xml:lang") = "en-US"
</script>
I think I have discovered a bug in ASP.NET, related to I18N.
In ASP.NET 3.5 I have to set runat="server" on the html
element to use explicit expressions. It appears that
ASP.NET
eats the xml:lang attribute on the html element when it is
set to runat="server".
Of course I want to replace the hardcoded "en-US" values
with (resource) explicit expressions; but, for
simplicity,
try this:
<html runat="server" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en-US" lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
...And you will find that no xml:lang attribute is rendered
to the browser! Remove the runat="server", and,
voila,
the
xml:lang attribute is rendered. :[
...Any ideas?
Cordially,
Lee