<form> syntax

[Coward 9]

HI,

I saw in an example hello.aspx, there is a <form tagbeing used like

<form runat="server>

I search all html tag references and could NOT find "runat" attributes
for <formtag.

which reference should I use in order to find that?

Thanks,

[Scott M.]

Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first. If
you are not, then I think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use it,
but not you).
"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPA Mrae.comwrote in message
news:u7******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:OZ******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

Sigh...here he goes again...

[Juan T. Llibre]

Actually, I said :

!May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?

Compare that to your statement that :
!>May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

....with which you were, clearly, attempting to subvert what I said.

I said that you had a "mistaken impression"; you said I had posted an "incorrect statement".

There's an enormous difference between those two statements,
particularly since it was *you* who posted the incorrect statements which I explained.

But, never mind...

Mark was spot-on with his assessment.

If you keep up the nitpicking, I may take further action...like blocking your posts.
That will take care of your persisting argumentative stance, AFAIC.

If you continue to bug others here, who come for either help or to assist others,
it's going to be their problem...due to your problem, but at least I won't be involved.

Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message news:uk******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P05.phx.gbl...

Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first. If you are not, then I
think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use it, but not you).

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPA Mrae.comwrote in message news:u7******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message news:OZ******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>>May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

Sigh...here he goes again...

[Mark Rae]

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:uk******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P05.phx.gbl...

Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first.
If you are not, then I think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use
it, but not you).

I've had enough of you now - bye.

<plonk>

[Scott M.]

Juan, you are not reading my replies correctly, your are mistaken in your
replies to me and you are being uneccesarially rude. If you take the time
to read carefully what I'm saying inline, and really try to put your ego
aside, you will see that I have provided proof (not my opinions) about why
you are mistaken about telling me I'm wrong AND the terminology you are
using.

See inline....
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:uq******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

re:

>Your terminology is what I'm questioning, not the rendering process.

You can nitpick my terminology all you want to.

But you should not nitpick while posting mistaken information.
It makes you look like, well, a nitpicker, and opens the door for *you* to
be nitpicked.

re:
!This is why VS .NET has two sections for standard page
!controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

Let me nitpick you, now, for a bit, as an example.

It is not "VS.NET" which has those two sections, it's *ASP.NET* which has
them.

...and those aren't the correct names for the two sections.

That's simply not true for VS .NET 2002 & 2003 (the category names are, in
fact, "Web Forms" and "HTML" as I stated). I am looking at it right now!
It is true that in the 2005 Toolbox, the categories are "Standard" & "HTML",
but my initial point is still true that there is no category called "ASP.NET
HTML".

The correct name for them is "HTML Server Controls" and "Web Server
Controls",
respectively, and the last one is not called "Web Form Controls, as you
allege.

Again, open the software (with your eyes open) and look. You are wrong.
The HTML category is for standard HTML markup, not server anyting. You are
confusing the "HTML Server Controls" with the HTML controls and that is not
an incosequential error to make, it is simply NOT nit-picking.

The "Web Form" is a *container* for Web Server Controls, not a web form
control itself.

I know that, (which is why you can't create a new one from the Toolbox and
why your initial term "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect). The term
"ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect becaus no such thing exists.

So, to make this abundantly clear, there's only *two* types of web forms,
not three.
One is the HTML web form; the other is the ASP.NET web form.

NOT TRUE!!! It's abundantly clear that you don't know what you are talking
about! Read on for my facts proving this, not my wild assumptions.

There is only ONE type of form available in an ASP.NET page. There are 3
(THREE) categories of controls, but where forms are concerned, only ONE (not
two) is applicable and it is NOT an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (my whole
point here!).

Only controls that have "<asp:" in their name are "Web Forms" ('02, '03) or
"Standard" ('05) controls and these are written (at design-time) as
"<asp:controlTy pe>". The form tag, which we are discussing does not start
with "<asp:" and is NOT of the ASP.NET type.

<FORM <-- HTML Form Tag (markup - not
ASP.NET anything and not allowed in an .aspx file)
<FORM runat="server" <-- HTML Server Control (the only way to use
a form in .aspx pages)

The difference is that one has runat="server"
and the other one doesn't, but you knew that, right ?

Yes, but neither of these syntaxes are written as "<asp:controlTy pe". It
appears that *you* apparently don't know that because you are stilll
ignoring this 3rd, and most common category of controls. And, it is still
incorrect to call it an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (as ASP.NET and HTML are
contradictory).

Look, we can spend a few back-and-forths nitpicking each other,
or we can try not to nitpick senselessly.

So, you see no difference between the following or you believe the
difference is trivial and nit-picking, right?

1. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" />
2. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" runat="server" />
3. <asp:TextBox id="txtUser" runat="server" />

Please note that these constitue the 3 (yes, three, not two) categories of
controls available to use and where forms are concerned, only the #2 version
is applicable in an ASP.NET page (try using #1 with a form tag and you'll
get a runtime exception).

- Item #1 is a standard piece of "HTML markup" or even "HTML Form Control"
if you like, but it has extremly limited server-side representation (and not
accesible by the developer via server-side code).
- Item #2 is an "HTML Server Control" and is represented in ASP.NET by an
"HTMLGenericCon trol" class. It has limited server-side functionality.
- Item #3 is an "ASP.NET Web Forms Control" or just "Server Control" and is
represented (in a very rich and specific way) via a "Textbox" class. This
category is the most rich form of control, as it has the widest range of
server-side coding possibilites (events, properties & methods).

Again, I will conceed that where forms are concerned, only #2 is available
in ASP.NET, but #2 is NOT referred to as an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control",
that's just wrong. I just demonstrated that very clearly. Why can't you
acknowledge there are non-trivial differences between them? What you have
been incorrectly referring to is actually an "HTML Server Control", not an
"ASP.NET HTML Form Control".

You knew what I meant when I wrote :

!The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form reference.

No, I didn't because you've listed the 2 out of 3 categories that are not
applicable. Your fist term is non-existant and your second descriptive term
is just incorrect.
Also, based on the original post, it's clear that "Coward 9" wouldn't have
figured that out. This is why I added a polite correction of your
terminology. I wan't rude and, as I've now shown, the differences are not
trivial.

But thanks for finally conceding that your terminology was bogus.

...just as I knew what you meant about the "two sections" and "VS.NET",
even if what you stated was not precisely correct on two counts.

Well, that's the difference between our posts, you are flat out wrong about
those items....

I'm correct when I say that there are TWO sections of the VS .NET toolbox
(in all VS.NET versions) that distinguish standard HTML markup from "<asp:"
("Web Forms" or "Standard") controls. Are you really going to keep pushing
that incorrect statement?

But, now you admit that you used the incorrect terminology, which is all I
was trying to point out.

Professional programmers, unless there's clearly mistaken references,
should avoid nitpicking for nitpicking's sake.

Yes, I absolutley agree (and not responding to your implied insult). But,
as I wrote earlier, if you really believe there are no important differences
in the THREE categories of controls, you must just be upset about someone
politely correcting you, because I know you are smart enough to understand
that there are HUGE implications to your application by using the wrong
category of control.

>


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:OZ******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>>I am well aware of how the rendering of server controls results in HTML,
but that has nothing to do
with what to call the control in question. Your terminology is what I'm
questioning , not the
rendering process.

May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

If "runat=serv er" is present, then the control can be programmed
server-side as an "ASP .NET Web
Form Control", while "HTML controls" do not have this capability. This
is why VS .NET has two
sections for standard page controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

If you take a normal HTML control and add "runat=serv er", you now have a
third category of
control, the "HTML Server Control", not the "ASP .NET HTML Server
Control".

I'll refer to your presented article, which is entitled "HTML Server
Controls", not "ASP .NET HTML
Controls". In fact, a search of that article of the words "ASP .NET HTML"
or "ASP.NET HTML" shows
that no where in the artcile are "ASP .NET" and "HTML" used next to each
other.
HTH

>"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:%2******* ********@TK2MSF TNGP02.phx.gbl. ..

>>re:
The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*.

May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?

!The *asp.net html form control*

From the page link I sent :

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zf(VS.71).aspx

You can indicate that an HTML element should be parsed and
treated as a server control by adding a runat="server" attribute.

Furthermore , the HtmlForm Control creates a server-side control that
maps to the
<formHTML element and allows you to create a container for elements in
a web page.

In essence, the "ASP.NET Web Form Control" is an HTML Form Control
which,
by adding the runat="server" property, is processed server-side.

HTH...

Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
============= =============== =======
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:%2****** **********@TK2M SFTNGP06.phx.gb l...
The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*. If it's an
ASP.NET control, it's not (by
definition ) an HTML control as well.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:ei***** ***********@TK2 MSFTNGP02.phx.g bl...
The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form
reference .
>
See :
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zf(VS.71).aspx
>
>
>
>
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=========== =============== =========
"Coward 9" <Co*****@gmail. comwrote in message
news:11**** *************** ***@p77g2000hsh .googlegroups.c om...
>HI,
>>
>I saw in an example hello.aspx, there is a <form tagbeing used like
>>
><form runat="server>
>>
>I search all html tag references and could NOT find "runat"
>attribut es
>for <formtag.
>>
>which reference should I use in order to find that?
>>
>Thanks,
>>
>
>

[Scott M.]

Now you are just being troll-like Juan. PLEASE DO "TAKE FURTHER ACTION" and
BLOCK ME so I won't have to deal with your insanity.

It's clear you are irrational on all fronts. You can call me wrong, but I
can't disagree and call you wrong in response? You said it first, so I must
be wrong because I said it second? You opinion carries more weight that
mine? PLEASE!

Your rebuttles to my posts, have in no way clarified how you are correct.
If you read my other latest post, you'll see I have incontravertly proven
your statements to be flat out wrong.

As far as your "lecture" on how to provide help to others, I think the best
thing to do is provide *facts*, be prepared to defend your position and be
willing to concede when you have been *proven* wrong (which you have not
done [read my other latest post] and I have). You have provided nothing but
incorrect statments, been rude (yeah that's a great quality to bring to the
table in a newsgroup) and no facts to *prove* your point.

As a matter of *fact*, you have already admitted you used the wrong
terminology, but yet, you continue to persist that the terminology you used
was correct? Do you not see the contradiction here?

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:us******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

Actually, I said :

!May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?

Compare that to your statement that :
!>May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be
corrected?

...with which you were, clearly, attempting to subvert what I said.

I said that you had a "mistaken impression"; you said I had posted an
"incorrect statement".

There's an enormous difference between those two statements,
particularly since it was *you* who posted the incorrect statements which
I explained.

But, never mind...

Mark was spot-on with his assessment.

If you keep up the nitpicking, I may take further action...like blocking
your posts.
That will take care of your persisting argumentative stance, AFAIC.

If you continue to bug others here, who come for either help or to assist
others,
it's going to be their problem...due to your problem, but at least I won't
be involved.

Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:uk******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P05.phx.gbl...

>Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first.
If you are not, then I think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use
it, but not you).

>"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPA Mrae.comwrote in message
news:u7******* *******@TK2MSFT NGP04.phx.gbl.. .

>>"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:OZ****** ********@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..

May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

Sigh...here he goes again...

[Juan T. Llibre]

You leave me no choice.

<plonk>


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..

Juan, you are not reading my replies correctly, your are mistaken in your replies to me and you
are being uneccesarially rude. If you take the time to read carefully what I'm saying inline, and
really try to put your ego aside, you will see that I have provided proof (not my opinions) about
why you are mistaken about telling me I'm wrong AND the terminology you are using.

See inline....
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:uq******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

>re:

>>Your terminology is what I'm questioning, not the rendering process.

You can nitpick my terminology all you want to.

But you should not nitpick while posting mistaken information.
It makes you look like, well, a nitpicker, and opens the door for *you* to be nitpicked.

re:
!This is why VS .NET has two sections for standard page
!controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

Let me nitpick you, now, for a bit, as an example.

It is not "VS.NET" which has those two sections, it's *ASP.NET* which has them.

...and those aren't the correct names for the two sections.

That's simply not true for VS .NET 2002 & 2003 (the category names are, in fact, "Web Forms" and
"HTML" as I stated). I am looking at it right now! It is true that in the 2005 Toolbox, the
categories are "Standard" & "HTML", but my initial point is still true that there is no category
called "ASP.NET HTML".

>The correct name for them is "HTML Server Controls" and "Web Server Controls",
respectively , and the last one is not called "Web Form Controls, as you allege.

Again, open the software (with your eyes open) and look. You are wrong. The HTML category is for
standard HTML markup, not server anyting. You are confusing the "HTML Server Controls" with the
HTML controls and that is not an incosequential error to make, it is simply NOT nit-picking.

>The "Web Form" is a *container* for Web Server Controls, not a web form control itself.

I know that, (which is why you can't create a new one from the Toolbox and why your initial term
"ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect). The term "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect
becaus no such thing exists.

>So, to make this abundantly clear, there's only *two* types of web forms, not three.
One is the HTML web form; the other is the ASP.NET web form.

NOT TRUE!!! It's abundantly clear that you don't know what you are talking about! Read on for my
facts proving this, not my wild assumptions.

There is only ONE type of form available in an ASP.NET page. There are 3 (THREE) categories of
controls, but where forms are concerned, only ONE (not two) is applicable and it is NOT an
"ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (my whole point here!).

Only controls that have "<asp:" in their name are "Web Forms" ('02, '03) or "Standard" ('05)
controls and these are written (at design-time) as "<asp:controlTy pe>". The form tag, which we
are discussing does not start with "<asp:" and is NOT of the ASP.NET type.

<FORM <-- HTML Form Tag (markup - not ASP.NET anything and not
allowed in an .aspx file)
<FORM runat="server" <-- HTML Server Control (the only way to use a form in .aspx pages)

>The difference is that one has runat="server"
and the other one doesn't, but you knew that, right ?

Yes, but neither of these syntaxes are written as "<asp:controlTy pe". It appears that *you*
apparently don't know that because you are stilll ignoring this 3rd, and most common category of
controls. And, it is still incorrect to call it an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (as ASP.NET and
HTML are contradictory).

>Look, we can spend a few back-and-forths nitpicking each other,
or we can try not to nitpick senselessly.

So, you see no difference between the following or you believe the difference is trivial and
nit-picking, right?

1. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" />
2. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" runat="server" />
3. <asp:TextBox id="txtUser" runat="server" />

Please note that these constitue the 3 (yes, three, not two) categories of controls available to
use and where forms are concerned, only the #2 version is applicable in an ASP.NET page (try using
#1 with a form tag and you'll get a runtime exception).

- Item #1 is a standard piece of "HTML markup" or even "HTML Form Control" if you like, but it has
extremly limited server-side representation (and not accesible by the developer via server-side
code).
- Item #2 is an "HTML Server Control" and is represented in ASP.NET by an "HTMLGenericCon trol"
class. It has limited server-side functionality.
- Item #3 is an "ASP.NET Web Forms Control" or just "Server Control" and is represented (in a very
rich and specific way) via a "Textbox" class. This category is the most rich form of control, as
it has the widest range of server-side coding possibilites (events, properties & methods).

Again, I will conceed that where forms are concerned, only #2 is available in ASP.NET, but #2 is
NOT referred to as an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control", that's just wrong. I just demonstrated that
very clearly. Why can't you acknowledge there are non-trivial differences between them? What you
have been incorrectly referring to is actually an "HTML Server Control", not an "ASP.NET HTML Form
Control".

>You knew what I meant when I wrote :

!The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form reference.

No, I didn't because you've listed the 2 out of 3 categories that are not applicable. Your fist
term is non-existant and your second descriptive term is just incorrect.
Also, based on the original post, it's clear that "Coward 9" wouldn't have figured that out. This
is why I added a polite correction of your terminology. I wan't rude and, as I've now shown, the
differences are not trivial.

But thanks for finally conceding that your terminology was bogus.

>...just as I knew what you meant about the "two sections" and "VS.NET",
even if what you stated was not precisely correct on two counts.

Well, that's the difference between our posts, you are flat out wrong about those items....

I'm correct when I say that there are TWO sections of the VS .NET toolbox (in all VS.NET versions)
that distinguish standard HTML markup from "<asp:" ("Web Forms" or "Standard") controls. Are you
really going to keep pushing that incorrect statement?

But, now you admit that you used the incorrect terminology, which is all I was trying to point
out.

>Professional programmers, unless there's clearly mistaken references,
should avoid nitpicking for nitpicking's sake.

Yes, I absolutley agree (and not responding to your implied insult). But, as I wrote earlier, if
you really believe there are no important differences in the THREE categories of controls, you
must just be upset about someone politely correcting you, because I know you are smart enough to
understand that there are HUGE implications to your application by using the wrong category of
control.

>>


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
============== =============== ======
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message news:OZ******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>>>I am well aware of how the rendering of server controls results in HTML, but that has nothing to
do
with what to call the control in question. Your terminology is what I'm questioning, not the
rendering process.

May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

If "runat=serv er" is present, then the control can be programmed server-side as an "ASP .NET Web
Form Control", while "HTML controls" do not have this capability. This is why VS .NET has two
sections for standard page controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

If you take a normal HTML control and add "runat=serv er", you now have a third category of
control, the "HTML Server Control", not the "ASP .NET HTML Server Control".

I'll refer to your presented article, which is entitled "HTML Server Controls", not "ASP .NET
HTML
Controls". In fact, a search of that article of the words "ASP .NET HTML" or "ASP.NET HTML"
shows
that no where in the artcile are "ASP .NET" and "HTML" used next to each other.
HTH

>>"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:%2****** *********@TK2MS FTNGP02.phx.gbl ...
re:
The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*.

May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?

!The *asp.net html form control*

From the page link I sent :

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zf(VS.71).aspx

You can indicate that an HTML element should be parsed and
treated as a server control by adding a runat="server" attribute.

Furthermor e, the HtmlForm Control creates a server-side control that maps to the
<formHTML element and allows you to create a container for elements in a web page.

In essence, the "ASP.NET Web Form Control" is an HTML Form Control which,
by adding the runat="server" property, is processed server-side.

HTH...

Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
============ =============== ========
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:%2***** ***********@TK2 MSFTNGP06.phx.g bl...
The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*. If it's an ASP.NET control, it's not
(by
definitio n) an HTML control as well.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:ei**** ************@TK 2MSFTNGP02.phx. gbl...
>The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form reference.
>>
>See :
>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zf(VS.71).aspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
>asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
>foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
>========== =============== ==========
>"Coward 9" <Co*****@gmail. comwrote in message
>news:11*** *************** ****@p77g2000hs h.googlegroups. com...
>>HI,
>>>
>>I saw in an example hello.aspx, there is a <form tagbeing used like
>>>
>><form runat="server>
>>>
>>I search all html tag references and could NOT find "runat" attributes
>>for <formtag.
>>>
>>which reference should I use in order to find that?
>>>
>>Thanks,
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Scott M.]

Yes, because you are unwilling to look at facts that clearly prove you
wrong. We can't have any of those pesky *fact* triumphing over insults and
mis-statements now can we?

But, as I said before, thanks for filtering me. Now there is one less idiot
to waste keystrokes on.

I hope, despite Juan's troll-like responses, you are clear on the .NET
control categories Coward 9.

-Scott

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:ud******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

You leave me no choice.

<plonk>


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP06.phx.gbl. ..

>Juan, you are not reading my replies correctly, your are mistaken in your
replies to me and you are being uneccesarially rude. If you take the
time to read carefully what I'm saying inline, and really try to put your
ego aside, you will see that I have provided proof (not my opinions)
about why you are mistaken about telling me I'm wrong AND the terminology
you are using.

See inline....
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:uq******* *******@TK2MSFT NGP03.phx.gbl.. .

>>re:
Your terminology is what I'm questioning, not the rendering process.

You can nitpick my terminology all you want to.

But you should not nitpick while posting mistaken information.
It makes you look like, well, a nitpicker, and opens the door for *you*
to be nitpicked.

re:
!This is why VS .NET has two sections for standard page
!controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

Let me nitpick you, now, for a bit, as an example.

It is not "VS.NET" which has those two sections, it's *ASP.NET* which
has them.

...and those aren't the correct names for the two sections.

That's simply not true for VS .NET 2002 & 2003 (the category names are,
in fact, "Web Forms" and "HTML" as I stated). I am looking at it right
now! It is true that in the 2005 Toolbox, the categories are "Standard" &
"HTML", but my initial point is still true that there is no category
called "ASP.NET HTML".

>>The correct name for them is "HTML Server Controls" and "Web Server
Controls",
respectivel y, and the last one is not called "Web Form Controls, as you
allege.

Again, open the software (with your eyes open) and look. You are wrong.
The HTML category is for standard HTML markup, not server anyting. You
are confusing the "HTML Server Controls" with the HTML controls and that
is not an incosequential error to make, it is simply NOT nit-picking.

>>The "Web Form" is a *container* for Web Server Controls, not a web form
control itself.

I know that, (which is why you can't create a new one from the Toolbox
and why your initial term "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect). The
term "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect becaus no such thing
exists.

>>So, to make this abundantly clear, there's only *two* types of web
forms, not three.
One is the HTML web form; the other is the ASP.NET web form.

NOT TRUE!!! It's abundantly clear that you don't know what you are
talking about! Read on for my facts proving this, not my wild
assumptions.

There is only ONE type of form available in an ASP.NET page. There are 3
(THREE) categories of controls, but where forms are concerned, only ONE
(not two) is applicable and it is NOT an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (my
whole point here!).

Only controls that have "<asp:" in their name are "Web Forms" ('02, '03)
or "Standard" ('05) controls and these are written (at design-time) as
"<asp:controlT ype>". The form tag, which we are discussing does not
start with "<asp:" and is NOT of the ASP.NET type.

<FORM <-- HTML Form Tag (markup - not
ASP.NET anything and not allowed in an .aspx file)
<FORM runat="server" <-- HTML Server Control (the only way to
use a form in .aspx pages)

>>The difference is that one has runat="server"
and the other one doesn't, but you knew that, right ?

Yes, but neither of these syntaxes are written as "<asp:controlTy pe". It
appears that *you* apparently don't know that because you are stilll
ignoring this 3rd, and most common category of controls. And, it is still
incorrect to call it an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (as ASP.NET and HTML
are contradictory).

>>Look, we can spend a few back-and-forths nitpicking each other,
or we can try not to nitpick senselessly.

So, you see no difference between the following or you believe the
difference is trivial and nit-picking, right?

1. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" />
2. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" runat="server" />
3. <asp:TextBox id="txtUser" runat="server" />

Please note that these constitue the 3 (yes, three, not two) categories
of controls available to use and where forms are concerned, only the #2
version is applicable in an ASP.NET page (try using #1 with a form tag
and you'll get a runtime exception).

- Item #1 is a standard piece of "HTML markup" or even "HTML Form
Control" if you like, but it has extremly limited server-side
representati on (and not accesible by the developer via server-side code).
- Item #2 is an "HTML Server Control" and is represented in ASP.NET by an
"HTMLGenericCo ntrol" class. It has limited server-side functionality.
- Item #3 is an "ASP.NET Web Forms Control" or just "Server Control" and
is represented (in a very rich and specific way) via a "Textbox" class.
This category is the most rich form of control, as it has the widest
range of server-side coding possibilites (events, properties & methods).

Again, I will conceed that where forms are concerned, only #2 is
available in ASP.NET, but #2 is NOT referred to as an "ASP.NET HTML Form
Control", that's just wrong. I just demonstrated that very clearly. Why
can't you acknowledge there are non-trivial differences between them?
What you have been incorrectly referring to is actually an "HTML Server
Control", not an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control".

>>You knew what I meant when I wrote :

!The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form
reference.

No, I didn't because you've listed the 2 out of 3 categories that are not
applicable. Your fist term is non-existant and your second descriptive
term is just incorrect.
Also, based on the original post, it's clear that "Coward 9" wouldn't
have figured that out. This is why I added a polite correction of your
terminology. I wan't rude and, as I've now shown, the differences are
not trivial.

But thanks for finally conceding that your terminology was bogus.

>>...just as I knew what you meant about the "two sections" and "VS.NET",
even if what you stated was not precisely correct on two counts.

Well, that's the difference between our posts, you are flat out wrong
about those items....

I'm correct when I say that there are TWO sections of the VS .NET toolbox
(in all VS.NET versions) that distinguish standard HTML markup from
"<asp:" ("Web Forms" or "Standard") controls. Are you really going to
keep pushing that incorrect statement?

But, now you admit that you used the incorrect terminology, which is all
I was trying to point out.

>>Professiona l programmers, unless there's clearly mistaken references,
should avoid nitpicking for nitpicking's sake.

Yes, I absolutley agree (and not responding to your implied insult).
But, as I wrote earlier, if you really believe there are no important
differences in the THREE categories of controls, you must just be upset
about someone politely correcting you, because I know you are smart
enough to understand that there are HUGE implications to your application
by using the wrong category of control.

>>>


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
============= =============== =======
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:OZ****** ********@TK2MSF TNGP04.phx.gbl. ..
I am well aware of how the rendering of server controls results in HTML,
but that has nothing to do
with what to call the control in question. Your terminology is what I'm
questioning , not the
rendering process.

May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

If "runat=serv er" is present, then the control can be programmed
server-side as an "ASP .NET Web
Form Control", while "HTML controls" do not have this capability. This
is why VS .NET has two
sections for standard page controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web
Form".

If you take a normal HTML control and add "runat=serv er", you now have
a third category of
control, the "HTML Server Control", not the "ASP .NET HTML Server
Control".

I'll refer to your presented article, which is entitled "HTML Server
Controls", not "ASP .NET HTML
Controls". In fact, a search of that article of the words "ASP .NET
HTML" or "ASP.NET HTML" shows
that no where in the artcile are "ASP .NET" and "HTML" used next to
each other.
HTH
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:%2***** **********@TK2M SFTNGP02.phx.gb l...
re:
>The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*.
>
May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?
>
!The *asp.net html form control*
>
From the page link I sent :
>
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zf(VS.71).aspx
>
You can indicate that an HTML element should be parsed and
treated as a server control by adding a runat="server" attribute.
>
Furthermore , the HtmlForm Control creates a server-side control that
maps to the
<formHTML element and allows you to create a container for elements
in a web page.
>
In essence, the "ASP.NET Web Form Control" is an HTML Form Control
which,
by adding the runat="server" property, is processed server-side.
>
HTH...
>
>
>
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=========== =============== =========
"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:%2**** ************@TK 2MSFTNGP06.phx. gbl...
>The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*. If it's an
>ASP.NET control, it's not (by
>definition ) an HTML control as well.
>
>
>"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
>news:ei*** *************@T K2MSFTNGP02.phx .gbl...
>>The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form
>>reference .
>>>
>>See :
>>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...zf(VS.71).aspx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
>>asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
>>foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>========= =============== ===========
>>"Coward 9" <Co*****@gmail. comwrote in message
>>news:11** *************** *****@p77g2000h sh.googlegroups .com...
>>>HI,
>>>>
>>>I saw in an example hello.aspx, there is a <form tagbeing used
>>>like
>>>>
>>><form runat="server>
>>>>
>>>I search all html tag references and could NOT find "runat"
>>>attribut es
>>>for <formtag.
>>>>
>>>which reference should I use in order to find that?
>>>>
>>>Thanks ,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!I've had enough of you now - bye.
!<plonk>

There must be something in the air.

In the last 10 years of trying to help people in these newsgroups,
I'd only plonked two people, separated by a few years.

This *week* I've plonked two.

I bet Scott couldn't resist the temptation to post a zinger or two,
*after* knowing that he's been plonked, all the time alleging that
it's not him, but us, who are behaving like trolls.

The more life changes, the more it's the same thing.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPA Mrae.comwrote in message news:OH******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message news:uk******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P05.phx.gbl...

>Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first. If you are not, then I
think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use it, but not you).

I've had enough of you now - bye.

<plonk>

[Scott M.]

LOL - No zingers needed, you've proven you level of knowledge in the area
and your willingness to deal in fact, rather than fiction.

Like when you said there is nothing in the Toolbox called "Web Forms" or
"HTML", when in fact, there is.

Or, when you say there are only two categories of ASP.NET controls (instead
of the 3 that I showed you).

Or, when you admit you used the wrong terminology, so you changed your whole
point from you using a term that doesn't exist and conveys an incorrect
meaning to me "nit-picking".

Or, when I backed up my statements with provable and checkable facts and you
provided none of either.

Or when you started throwing insults when no one provoked you to do so.

Yes, I really need a "zinger" to show how wrong you've been. Actually, I
think everyone who doesn't like a discussion which includes facts to dispute
fiction should also filter me. Then I can converse with the other crazy
folks like myself.


"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:OI******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP06.phx.gbl...

re:
!I've had enough of you now - bye.
!<plonk>

There must be something in the air.

In the last 10 years of trying to help people in these newsgroups,
I'd only plonked two people, separated by a few years.

This *week* I've plonked two.

I bet Scott couldn't resist the temptation to post a zinger or two,
*after* knowing that he's been plonked, all the time alleging that
it's not him, but us, who are behaving like trolls.

The more life changes, the more it's the same thing.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPA Mrae.comwrote in message
news:OH******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

>"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp amwrote in message
news:uk******* ******@TK2MSFTN GP05.phx.gbl...

>>Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it
first. If you are not, then I think you are being a bit hipocritical (he
can use it, but not you).

I've had enough of you now - bye.

<plonk>

[Mark Rae]

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@ nowhere.comwrot e in message
news:OI******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP06.phx.gbl...

In the last 10 years of trying to help people in these newsgroups,
I'd only plonked two people, separated by a few years.

This *week* I've plonked two.

I have a feeling a third came dangerously close too... :-)

Just be thankful you're not an MVP in one of the Vista forums at the
moment... ;-) All is most certainly not pax et harmonium over there...

I bet Scott couldn't resist the temptation to post a zinger or two,
*after* knowing that he's been plonked, all the time alleging that
it's not him, but us, who are behaving like trolls.

Who cares - neither of us will see it... :-)