If the standard has changed, or if the Microsoft understanding of the
standard is incorrect, look for a change in the next (or following) version
of the CLR. From what I've learned, Microsoft is concentrating more on XHTML
than on existing implementations of HTML. This is a good thing, as HTML will
ultimately be replaced with XHTML. In the meantime, however, as difficult as
it is to keep up, I do believe Microsoft is doing their best to do so.
Remember that the .Net platform 1.1 is several years old, and took several
years to build.
Microsoft is about standards. Well that is a change. The IE team only
agreed
to implement the CSS 2.* spec after significant pressure from the
development
community (just read the comments on IE blog *before* they announced they
It is a change, but it has been occurring over a number of years with
increasing speed. It started sometime around the year 1998 - 2000. I have
personally observed quite a bit of movement in quite a number of products
and technologies over the past 5 years.
I can't argue with you about IE. IE has fallen behind quite a bit, but
almost entirely due to its critical role in the Windows operating system.
This prevents IE from being rolled out as quickly and regularly as competing
browsers, and makes modifying it complex and difficult. In addition, it is
important to remember that Microsoft makes a huge amount of software, and
much of it interoperates with other Microsoft software. Microsoft employs
over 50,000 people, and making changes in their products doesn't happen "on
a dime."
The Microsoft web site is one of the worst examples of the slowness of this
progress. Even as a fan of Microsoft, I generally prefer to use FireFox, but
whenever I go to the Microsoft site, I use IE because of the poor support
for non-IE browsers there. On the other hand, it is possibly the single
largest web site in the world, and will take time to adapt. I expect it
will.
I have been one of the most ardent advocates with Microsoft, in my
interactions with them, for the adoption and support of external CSS style
sheets, for about 4 years now. I have seen this in ASP.Net 2.0, and
not-yet-released versions of other products which I am not at liberty to
discuss. Have I been frustrated by the speed with which they have done this?
Very.
Still, Microsoft has openly committed to following standards, and I expect
them to continue to do so. Transact-SQL, the SQL flavor used by Microsoft
SQL Server, more closely conforms to ISO SQL than any other flavor that I've
seen, although MySQL is pretty close. The .Net platform 2.0 certainly has
made quite a number of standards-based changes, all of which I'm sure we
will all welcome. The next version of IE (IE 7) is now available as a beta 1
download, and although it behaves much like any other beta 1 software (in
other words, don't install it on a production machine!), it shows a lot of
promise.
In the meantime, it would take you about 30 minutes to write your own radio
button Control, and my guess is, it would be an eye-opening experience for
you. The built-in ASP.Net Controls were never intended by Microsoft to be
the only Server Controls used by developers. There is an entire section in
the .Net SDK on how to develop your own. See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpcondevelopingwebformscontrols.asp?frame=true
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
David Cameron said:
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Microsoft does not make decisions regarding their object models based on
what passes in a W3C validator program. They make their decisions based
upon
the RFCs, which are the ultimate authority. This is logical. The Oxford
Englidh dictionary is the ultimate authority regarding the spelling of
any
word in the English language. If Oxford were to put out a spell-checker
application that happened to allow for incorrect spellings, due to the
latency between the revision of the Dictionary and the revision of the
spell-checker, the Dictionary would still be the authority. Or, as
another
example, the codified laws of the US are the ultimate authority regarding
what is law. The judges that arbitrate cases are not. This is why we have
courts of appeals. Judges make mistakes.
Don't give me that. W3C is the authorative source for HTML and CSS. That
RFC
you have linked to is for HTML 2.0. If you read the blurb for the RFC it
states it is "Obsoleted by RFC2854". If you then read that RFC
(ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2854.txt) it states in the abstract:
"This document was prepared at the request of the W3C HTML working
group. Please send comments to (e-mail address removed), a public mailing list
with archive at <
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/>"
and later in the introduction:
"The IETF HTML working group closed Sep 1996, and work on defining
HTML moved to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The proposed
extensions were incorporated to some extent in [HTML32], and to a
larger extent in [HTML40]."
So W3C is the ultimate authority when it comes to HTML. Microsoft *should*
be making their decisions based on what passes the W3C validator.
A blank string in an HTTP POST is a non-existent value, as EVERYTHING in
an
HTTP POST is a string. IOW, there is no distinction when referring to all
string content between NULL and an empty string. The fact that the name
is
passed is irrelevant regarding this issue. In a database, or a
programming
platform, there are many different data types, and NULL is not a string.
This is only possible because there are many different data types.
I don't think that the fact that the name is passed is irrelevant. I still
get a POSTed blank string. I have yet to see anything that suggests this
is
non-standard behaviour. When running server side for ASP.net, PHP and asp
(the languages I have used in web development), there is a distinction in
POSTed data between an input whote value is an empty string and an input
that
doesn't exist.
As I have pointed out, for the 2 reasons specified and explained above,
you
may maintain your opinion until the cows come home, but Microsoft will
not
change the object model to suit an opinion. Microsoft is all about
standards
these days. They will conform to the standard. Of course, writing a
custom
radio button Server Control is a piece of cake, and you are free to "roll
your own" for your own use.
Microsoft is about standards. Well that is a change. The IE team only
agreed
to implement the CSS 2.* spec after significant pressure from the
development
community (just read the comments on IE blog *before* they announced they
would support CSS 2.1). We could be generous and assume that they were
going
to do it anyway, however nothing in any of the public statements regarding
IE's features suggested that they might. As for following standards, I
submit
the following:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...pnet&mid=06e47415-8e7b-494f-8fa4-6839754ca9d0
Hoevere this is neither here nor there. As I understand the standard you
have posted, a blank string is a valid value. As you have stated in your
other comment, it is conjecture that a blank string in an invalid value.
Of couse there is an immediate fix, for this, as you suggested I can roll
my
own. But I state again, I regard this as a bug in ASP.Net that seems to be
based a misreading of the standards.
If it isn't clear, I am also annoyed because I feel I am being given the
run
around.
