beta2 XHTML compliance? is this necessary. OR STUPID...read UP MICROSOFT

[rhat]

I heard that beta 2 now makes ASP.NET xhtml compliant.

Can anyone shed some light on what this will change and it will break stuff
as converting HTML to XHTML pages DO break things. see,
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/

I read on
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframew...=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/netfxcompat.asp

It said they changed stuff like this

" Standards Compliance: The HTML rendering in ASP.NET was updated to be
XHTML 1.0 Transitional, which is standards compliant "

which is again another STUPID standard compliance mindnumb robot type of
thinking. Standard compliance is and will NEVER be important as getting it
to work on multiple browsers, period. What good is standards if the app
doesn't even work? How about a new standard? It's called getting it to work
instead of listening to some stupid committee who sits around all day in
conference talking to each other but know nothing of the real world in
getting things to actually work.

 

[Teemu Keiski]

Hello,

If I recall correctly this has been one of the most requested features to
ASP.NET 2.0. Standards are also the way to get it work with all browsers as
the majority browsers all somewhat support XHTML, and of course more and
more browsers will do that when there begins to be the demand for it. Major
web technique is quite close being a reason for that alone.

On the other hand, rendering in ASP.NET 2.0 is also pretty well configurable
so I suppose you can get it to work with almost any browser you like. Do you
have some specific scenario that fails with ASP.NET 2.0 for a reason or
another? Maybe we can help?

 

[Brian Henry]

how about you stop complaining and accept standards and change... Thousands
of people asked for it and MS gave it to them... you should be happy that MS
is creating something standard complient. You still have the option to use
HTML standard if you want to by changing the rendering doc type... no one is
forceing you to use XHTML 1.0

 

[rhat]

This beta 2 white paper says they are going to XHTML as a default, I think

These so-called people, have the ACTUALLY TESTED there apps to see if they
DON'T break as opposed to "Let's be standards compliant just for the sake of
standards compliant".

That's the type of nim rod robot thinking of some intellectual who's out of
touch of reality.

The reality is #1 let's make sure it works across all browsers as opposed to
let's make be standard's compliant just to satisfy some committee and say so
we slap a sticker that means nothing if it ACTUALLY doesn't work and breaks
an app on this browser.

Before you open your mouth and for Microsoft bunch of robots out there,
LET"S ACTUALLY TEST before jumpt to XHTML....MOST OF YOU so-called standard
advocates DO NOT even HAVE a WEB APP to begin with...so be quiet if you
don't something in production.

 

[rhat]

Requested by WHO? And for WHAT REASON?

Just SO these people can add it to their resume saying, "SEE, I can do
XHTML" but in reality this XHTML cause these web pages not to display
properly across these browsers

The fact that your reply says that it will BREAK some browsers means that
beta 2.0 DOES NOT PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS and is going against what MR. BILL
said he would do.

See the difference between, "PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS" and just being
"standards complaint" just for the sake of "being standards complaint"

The first means, "MAKING IT HAPPEN" in the REAL WORLD
The second means, "HOPING it WILL HAPPEN" in the real world as we already
know many browsers DO NOT AGREE ON STANDARDS.

 

[gerry]

lol - get a life

what xhtml doesnt work in which browsers ?
most if not all current browser versions have far more reliable and
consistant support for xhtml than html !
the exception being MSIE which is so far behind the curve as to be
considered archaic.
if you don't want to use xhtml just use the proper dtd and keep using html
the same as ever.

btw - can you post the url to your killer web app ?

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Just SO these people can add it to their resume saying, "SEE, I can do
XHTML" but in reality this XHTML cause these web pages not to display
properly across these browsers

Much more than 90 percent of the Web users are using browsers which are more
or less standard-compliant. Thus I don't see any reason for supporting very
few exotic browsers which do not have a future.

 

[Brock Allen]

The reality is #1 let's make sure it works across all browsers as

opposed to let's make be standard's compliant just to satisfy some
committee and say so we slap a sticker that means nothing if it
ACTUALLY doesn't work and breaks an app on this browser.

You can revert to ASP.NET 1.1 rendering with this configuration option in
web.config:

<xhtml11Conformance enableLegacyRendering="true"/>

 

[Bruce Wood]

I second the motion: get a grip.

There are good reasons why XHTML was created in the first place, and
why the push is on to gain it wider acceptance. HTML is so loose that
it takes a massive browser program to deal gracefully with the myriad
possible inconsistencies and errors in HTML documents. Massive browser
programs don't sit well on many new devices that are trying to surf the
Web, like cell phones and handhelds. XHTML suits these devices far
better, because the browse can be much simpler and thus more compact.

There is a three-way dance between browser designers, people who build
the tools to build content / programs that provide content (that would
be Microsoft), and the standards bodies. Sometimes the browser builders
are leading the dance, introducing new features, etc. Sometimes the
content providers and tool builders (such as MS) are leading the dance.

It sounds to me as though your beef is not that the cart is before the
horse, but that you have to make any changes to your already-released
Web app in order to keep it universally compatible. So what if MS makes
XHTML the default, so long as they provide some way to fall back to the
old way for what become legacy apps because of changes like this one?

Your complaint is that the browser designers should be leading the
dance, not the toolsmiths, but then almost all browsers already support
XHTML, so arguably that's already happened and the browsers are in the
lead. So you designed your app to work in HTML instead of XHTML. What
is the rest of the world supposed to do? Freeze development and change
so that you don't have to change your app? It sounds to me as though
you're pissed off not so much at Microsoft but at the fact that things
are changing at all.

 

[Joerg Jooss]

I heard that beta 2 now makes ASP.NET xhtml compliant.

Can anyone shed some light on what this will change and it will break
stuff as converting HTML to XHTML pages DO break things. see,
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/

I read on
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-u
s/dnnetdep/html/netfxcompat.asp

It said they changed stuff like this

" Standards Compliance: The HTML rendering in ASP.NET was updated to
be XHTML 1.0 Transitional, which is standards compliant "

which is again another STUPID standard compliance mindnumb robot type
of thinking. Standard compliance is and will NEVER be important as
getting it to work on multiple browsers, period.

As a matter of fact, adhering to standards is the only way to achieve
cross browser compatibility (YMMV) -- or explain to me how using
non-standard features helps here.

It is also vital for adhering to accessibility requirements, which are
mandatory in countries like Germany if you want to develop web
applications for government organizations.

Cheers,

 

[John Timney \(ASP.NET MVP\)]

If you want to degrade asp2 to be non xhtml compliant, all it takes is an
ihttpfilter to degrade the tags you want in the applications you need
degrading - which is the easiest approach to make asp1.x xhtml compliant.

--
Regards

John Timney
ASP.NET MVP
Microsoft Regional Director

 

[Brian Henry]

I think you are the one out of touch with reality. The only way new
standards ever get pushed out is to force them out... When something new or
better comes out it is never adopted at first by everyone... you know how
long it took to get XML to where it is now? You have to make changes to the
lowest node in the tree to force all the things above it to switch also,
this lowest node being the development end in this case. Of which everything
above will eventually support once they realize there is a need for it. Even
MS is updateing IE with IE7 to be XHTML complient and such.

And for not having a web app, I maintain a "web app" that is 600,000 lines
of code, and it works perfectly fine in XHTML, and have not seen it broken
yet. The only part that is broken ever was some of the CSS settings which IE
did not accept correctly, which we go around with other methods.. Ontop of
that huge application portal we have for our insurance customers, we have an
internal intranet site, and a secure email site all writen by us in .NET 1.1
and tested now in 2.0 beta 2.. not ONE problem that was a major one during
the testing transfer.

 

[Brian Henry]

btw.. coming here for the first time and posting something like this, just
shows nothing more then an attitude to want to cause a fight about something
stupid you know little about...

 

[Chance Hopkins]

I heard that beta 2 now makes ASP.NET xhtml compliant.

Can anyone shed some light on what this will change and it will break
stuff
as converting HTML to XHTML pages DO break things. see,
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/

I read on
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframew...=/library/en-us/dnnetdep/html/netfxcompat.asp

It said they changed stuff like this

" Standards Compliance: The HTML rendering in ASP.NET was updated to be
XHTML 1.0 Transitional, which is standards compliant "

which is again another STUPID standard compliance mindnumb robot type of
thinking. Standard compliance is and will NEVER be important as getting
it
to work on multiple browsers, period. What good is standards if the app
doesn't even work? How about a new standard? It's called getting it to
work
instead of listening to some stupid committee who sits around all day in
conference talking to each other but know nothing of the real world in
getting things to actually work.

I have 5 sites that are 100% xhtml compliant (built in 1.1 framework) and
also work in anything from Mac 8.6 with IE 3.2 and Netscape 4.01, Linux,
Mozilla, Netscape, Windows, PocketIE...you name it.

Just because you are ignorant, doesn't meant the rest of us are.

 

[rhat]

Excuse me, it's already cross-browser compatible...it's just that XHTML the
so-called standard IS NOT COMPATIBLE

No it's ok for things to be changing, it NOT OK for things to BREAKING....

 

[clintonG]

Requested by WHO? And for WHAT REASON?

<snip />

The whole point of deprecating HTML and adopting XHTML as the current and
future standard is to enable the entire page to be parsed as well-formed and
valid XML. That is the reasoning. Who requested this? I would say many many
many developers clamoring for a standard in the presentation layer.

Finally, there is nobody forcing anybody to adopt XHTML and all versions of
Visual Studio can be easily configured by a competent developer to emit
downlevel HTML.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
METROmilwaukee (sm) "A Regional Information Service"
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://metromilwaukee.com/
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/

 

[rhat]

Does your web app work cross browser?

600,000 line of code? really, what are you doing here then?

most people here couldn't even code if they had to, just a bunch of dimwits
who can't get a job OR in reality keep their job because so they are so into
their books and the programs they did write DO NOT WORK.

 

[rhat]

Let's see those website then?

Just why did microsoft post a WHITE PAPER saying essential it WOULD BREAK?

 

[rhat]

BTW....coming here is to talk to microsoft and those who have a clue...

And not MVP's who couldn't even code in the real world but somehow have all
the time in the world answering the same nickel and dime questions for free
BUT somehow Microsoft is hiring like crazy, can't even get there products
out the door, but for some reason don't want to hire these so-called
MVP......and why is that? because MVP's are just "professionals" whatever
that means as OPPOSED TO "programmers" who can actually do the work.

 

[rhat]

Typical, ms speak who knows nothing of the REAL world....

Since XHTML is NOT supported by all browsers, I should not have to RE-WRITE
my app to just to ACTUALLY GET IT WORK IN the REAL WORLD of all
browsers.....

Getting it to work in the REAL WORLD is MORE important than being standards
compliant especially when not everyone can agree on which standard to
support.

But because you PROBABLY DON'T CODE, NOR have any web apps to begin that
actually have customers and where you actually have to make a profit, you
wouldn't know.