Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've
just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation
errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the
framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this
doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the
following...
<script>
<!--
function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) {
WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process
NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false);
}
// -->
</script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've
hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) 8 1510
Alan,
Thank you for making the internet a more useable place for the <1% that need
XHTML conformance today.
Sincerely
DWS
"Alan Silver" wrote: Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following...
<script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Thus wrote DWS, Alan, Thank you for making the internet a more useable place for the <1% that need XHTML conformance today.
There are rules and regulations in certain countries that stipulate the use
of valid XHTML, e.g. to allow for accessibility technologies like screen
readers. You probably don't care, but you're customer may do...
Cheers,
--
Joerg Jooss ne********@joergjooss.de
type is not required. you can supply a meta tag default the script type.
<META http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:8E**************@nospamthankyou.spam... Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following...
<script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Hi Alan,
I have found a few XHTML bugs too. As a custom control developer, I don't
have any choice but to try to get 100% compliance of my web controls.
I've used the Microsoft bug reporting system to notify them about bugs. Its
essential that you do the same.
You can get to it here: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/Produc...k/default.aspx
--- Peter Blum www.PeterBlum.com
Email: PL****@PeterBlum.com
Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:8E**************@nospamthankyou.spam... Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following...
<script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
In article <45**********************************@microsoft.co m>, DWS
<DW*@discussions.microsoft.com> writes Alan, Thank you for making the internet a more useable place for the <1% that need XHTML conformance today.
What was the point of this comment? If you don't have anything sensible
to say, please don't bother.
Sincerely DWS
"Alan Silver" wrote:
Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following...
<script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
In article <uU**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Peter Blum
<PL****@Blum.info> writes Hi Alan,
I have found a few XHTML bugs too. As a custom control developer, I don't have any choice but to try to get 100% compliance of my web controls.
I've used the Microsoft bug reporting system to notify them about bugs. Its essential that you do the same.
Thanks. Have you had any success using this? I submitted a couple of
(admittedly minor) bug reports using this, and there hasn't been the
slightest hint of anyone taking any notice of them.
Ta ra
You can get to it here: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/Produc...k/default.aspx
--- Peter Blum www.PeterBlum.com Email: PL****@PeterBlum.com Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message news:8E**************@nospamthankyou.spam... Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following...
<script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
In article <Ok**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, Bruce Barker
<br******************@safeco.com> writes type is not required. you can supply a meta tag default the script type.
<META http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
Thanks, but this didn't help. The script tag itself still needs a type
attribute for validity.
Any other ideas? Other than not using the treeview altogether!! Thanks.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message news:8E**************@nospamthankyou.spam... Hello,
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code.
I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0.
I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following...
<script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,T reeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script>
which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute.
Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
In article <uU**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Peter Blum
<PL****@Blum.info> writes I have found a few XHTML bugs too. As a custom control developer, I don't have any choice but to try to get 100% compliance of my web controls.
Have you ever seen a "name" attribute added to the form? I am having
this problem at the moment and can't see how to fix it.
My server side code is...
<form id="Form1" runat="server">
....and the resulting output looks like...
<form name="aspnetForm" method="post" action="Default.aspx"
id="aspnetForm">
Ever seen this? It's stopping my pages from validating. Any suggestions
as to how to avoid it would be very welcome.
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Shyamal Prasad |
last post by:
Hi,
Is there anyway to write JSP files as valid HTML of any sort. What I
want to know is if JSP files are some sort of valid XML with a DTD
that will check contents. Perhaps JSP files are valid...
|
by: Greg |
last post by:
Hi everybody,
so, I would like to use XML files for some parts of my website. I would like
to respect W3C XHTML 1.1 recommendation.
Then, I have these two docs :
o My XML file:
<?xml...
|
by: Anna |
last post by:
Hi all.
I have probably a rather stupid question.
If there is an HTML document, XML-formed using JTidy,
is there any tool to convert it to valid XHTML?
I.e. so that all the tags and attribute...
|
by: Neal |
last post by:
According to the specs
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2), the <a> element
requires an end tag. And so, when we use <A NAME="foo"> in HTML 2.0 to
4.01, it won't validate,...
|
by: Joris Janssens |
last post by:
I'm trying to write a program for validating XHTML 1.1-documents
against the XHTML 1.1 DTD (which is actually the same as validating an
XML-file) but I always get a "(404) Not found" error.
This...
|
by: Anthony Williams |
last post by:
Morning all,
I'm having a wee problem with a project I'm working on at the moment.
I'm leading my company into producing a website, based upon Web
Standards, which will be created using XHTML...
|
by: Alan Silver |
last post by:
Hello,
I am a complete and utter newbie at ASP.NET, so please forgive any
stupid questions ;-)
I am just trying to get my head around the whole web forms business, but
have run into a...
|
by: Brian Lowe |
last post by:
I'm using Visual Studio to build ASP.Net pages and I'm trying to be
standards compliant by using XHTML.
In my page I create valid XHTML such as:
<ul>
<li>first list item</li>
<li>second list...
|
by: Lee Chapman |
last post by:
Hi,
I am having difficulty getting the ASP.NET framework to generate valid
XHTML. My immediate problem surrounds user input in, for example, textbox
controls.
I consider characters such as...
|
by: DolphinDB |
last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further!
In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
|
by: Vimpel783 |
last post by:
Hello!
Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
|
by: jfyes |
last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
|
by: ArrayDB |
last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
|
by: PapaRatzi |
last post by:
Hello,
I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
|
by: CloudSolutions |
last post by:
Introduction:
For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
|
by: Faith0G |
last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
| |