By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,263 Members | 1,694 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,263 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.

Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
119 Replies


P: n/a
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?

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU

Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.


Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.



Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
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.
"Teemu Keiski" <jo****@aspalliance.com> wrote in message
news:u9**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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?

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU

Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
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 ?

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.




Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> schrieb:
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.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
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.

Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.


Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
rhat wrote:
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/netframewo...=/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,
--
http://www.joergjooss.de
mailto:ne********@joergjooss.de
Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
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.

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
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...

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.


Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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/
Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
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....


"Bruce Wood" <br*******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
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.

Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eT**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
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.

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
Let's see those website then?

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

"Chance Hopkins" <ch************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.

Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
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.



"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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...

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.



Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
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.

"John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.



Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
yes it works cross platform, Opera, Firefox and IE all work correctly.. and
as for the size of the application its a huge insurance processing
application, if you ever worked in the insurance field you'd know how
utterly complex it is to set up accounts, commissions, coverages,
enrollments, mantain all of that and also process claims, billing, and all
the reports required behind that. What am I doing here? it's called the
never ending learning process... you want to do something else, you ask to
see if there is a better way sometimes and that helps with a community of
people who have been there and done that.
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eT**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
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.

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>
> "Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
how is coming here to talk to Microsoft? there are no MS employees here that
monitor this place, its only MVP's... besides that the only "MSFT" tags you
will see is MSDN monitors for managed support tickets that MSDN subscribers
created on here... they don't even see the posts that people who don't
subscribe to MSDN.

If you want to talk to microsoft email their wish email address.. this is
not the place for that.

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uT****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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.



"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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...

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a
name the browsers already that "Arnt" complient with XHTML1.0 you keep
blabbing about them but never backed it up with facts or names or
examples... so start giving them or be quiet, because a lot of us here have
many years of experience with all this and know what does and doesn't work.
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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.

"John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
the following browsers are XHTML 1.0 complient

* Amaya
* Mozilla
* FireFox 1.0
* Internet Explorer 5.0
* Internet Explorer 6.0
* Safari
* Opera

so please... once again... tell me what browsers you are talking about that
arn't complient that using XHTML1.0 code will "break" compatability?

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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.

"John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
In the REAL WORLD, 90% is NOT good enough...just like 99% is NOT GOOD ENOUGH
for server UP TIME

There are always going to be exceptions and if we can support them all NOW
and we can, WE SHOULD NOT BREAK what's not broken.

HTML is a TRUE STANDARD......XHTML is a NOT FULLY ADOPTED STANDARD.

When you can actually write a web app in the REAL world, let me know. NO MVP
who has that much time on their hands should be telling me or anyone else in
the real world what to do until they can actually do it iin a real world
environment with customers themselves first.

TO ALL MVPs:

GET A REAL JOB where you don't spend all day in the newsgroups answering
questions for free and with no accountability if your decisions are wrong
and/or code doesn't even work.
(BTW a lot of you, actually 100% of you, are BOOK SMART intellectuals but
couldn't code a web app or any app if your life depended on it. And why is
this? Well it's because you're too arrogant to admit your mistakes and
therefore you learn nothing and make the same mistakes over and over again.
And that's why you are still here in the newsgroups posting away as opposed
to programming away.)


"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:O7**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> schrieb:
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.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Jul 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
if you don't believe me then look at the compatability listing

http://www.xmlsoftware.com/browsers.html

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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.

"John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
Cross-platform right? Ok, that means not internal, i.e. public. So where
is the URL? What's the name of the company then? Let's ask around and see if
what you say is really true to begin with and that nothing broke and the
time involved just to have a standard for standards sake.

never ending learning process? here?......if you were really in the real
world you would be here then, this is a holiday.....you would be taking a
break, not posting on a off day.

So you don't know crap and you are full of B.S. Nobody who programs 600, 000
line of code would even be here on a holiday as they really should be
resting from all the work to get that 600,000 lines of code to work.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:uS***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
yes it works cross platform, Opera, Firefox and IE all work correctly.. and as for the size of the application its a huge insurance processing
application, if you ever worked in the insurance field you'd know how
utterly complex it is to set up accounts, commissions, coverages,
enrollments, mantain all of that and also process claims, billing, and all
the reports required behind that. What am I doing here? it's called the
never ending learning process... you want to do something else, you ask to
see if there is a better way sometimes and that helps with a community of
people who have been there and done that.
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eT**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
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.

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>
> "Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
In all of this you haven't stated which browsers don't process XHTML
properly. You keep saying that it is not compatible, but you never give
any evidence.

Jul 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
Is this all browsers on the Mac?

Just because these say they are COMPLIANT doens't mean the web page will
display properly

Does stuff in IE 6 always display in Firefox correctly? NO. end of your
arguments
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
the following browsers are XHTML 1.0 complient

* Amaya
* Mozilla
* FireFox 1.0
* Internet Explorer 5.0
* Internet Explorer 6.0
* Safari
* Opera

so please... once again... tell me what browsers you are talking about that arn't complient that using XHTML1.0 code will "break" compatability?

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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.

"John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
Total B.S.

There are still lots of pages in IE 6 that don't display properly in
Firefox....

That fact that you easily can point to reference sites shows me that you are
just a book worm and not a real life programmer who can actually admit that
XHTML didn't work all the time when you converted over.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
if you don't believe me then look at the compatability listing

http://www.xmlsoftware.com/browsers.html

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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.

"John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
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

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>
>
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
does safari and mozilla render pages exactly the same? no so drop it.
everyone has their own rendering scheme and no one is required to follow W3C
exactly, W3C even says so on their own page. What they say is just a
recomendadtion

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is this all browsers on the Mac?

Just because these say they are COMPLIANT doens't mean the web page will
display properly

Does stuff in IE 6 always display in Firefox correctly? NO. end of your
arguments
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
the following browsers are XHTML 1.0 complient

* Amaya
* Mozilla
* FireFox 1.0
* Internet Explorer 5.0
* Internet Explorer 6.0
* Safari
* Opera

so please... once again... tell me what browsers you are talking about

that
arn't complient that using XHTML1.0 code will "break" compatability?

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>
>
> "John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>
>> "rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
OK... so which browsers are giving you trouble, and which features of
XHTML are giving you trouble. You keep shouting about the REAL WORLD
and GETTING THINGS DONE, but you never post a concrete question of the
form, "So, how do I do this, then?" Nor do you give specific examples
of browsers that don't support XHTML or aspects of your Web app that
are going to be a headache to convert, if it needs converting at all.

For someone so adamant about practice always trumping theory, you're
long on theoretical ranting, and you supply no practical details at
all. Given this, all posters here can do is rant back.

Or perhaps that's your intent?

Jul 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/

the original post....

BTW, it's known fact .NET developers have poor web skills and those on
thiese groups don't even have a web page and couldn't even code a web page
if they had to....just look at the personal web pages...looks like crap if
they even have one.

So they could even tell the difference if there pages break because they
look so crappy to begin with.

Most are BLOGS.....which means they DIDN'T even write, support or code even
that web page...this means ZERO EXPERIENCE in WEB PAGES...thus these
naysayers should sit DOWN and just shut up and actually start making a web
page for once in their life.


"Bruce Wood" <br*******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
In all of this you haven't stated which browsers don't process XHTML
properly. You keep saying that it is not compatible, but you never give
any evidence.

Jul 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
if you think that 600,000 lines of code happens over night then you have to
be kidding yourself. Especially if you think just one person writes that
much! That's years of work along with teams of developers working on the
project simotaniously, and just so you know people do work today, This is a
US holiday, not the entire world so there are people working today! and to
assume someone doesnt "know crap" is moronic, because you don't have a clue
about someones knowledge just from reading posts on here. What kind of
degree do you have? What is your background? I bet you anything all the
MVP's here have more experience and education then you even come close to.

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Cross-platform right? Ok, that means not internal, i.e. public. So where
is the URL? What's the name of the company then? Let's ask around and see
if
what you say is really true to begin with and that nothing broke and the
time involved just to have a standard for standards sake.

never ending learning process? here?......if you were really in the real
world you would be here then, this is a holiday.....you would be taking a
break, not posting on a off day.

So you don't know crap and you are full of B.S. Nobody who programs 600,
000
line of code would even be here on a holiday as they really should be
resting from all the work to get that 600,000 lines of code to work.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:uS***************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
yes it works cross platform, Opera, Firefox and IE all work correctly..

and
as for the size of the application its a huge insurance processing
application, if you ever worked in the insurance field you'd know how
utterly complex it is to set up accounts, commissions, coverages,
enrollments, mantain all of that and also process claims, billing, and
all
the reports required behind that. What am I doing here? it's called the
never ending learning process... you want to do something else, you ask
to
see if there is a better way sometimes and that helps with a community of
people who have been there and done that.
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>
> "Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:eT**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> 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.
>>
>> "rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
>> > news:eL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> 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" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #33

P: n/a
that is CSS not XHTML you need to read into stuff before posting.. and the
fact I can use Google to look stuff up does not mean im a book work so grow
the heck up and learn to control your mouth. XHTML != CSS. all the bugs you
see in rendering were caused by bad CSS rendering not XHTML. Infact all
those browsers listed do render XHTML correctly when no CSS is applied and
render it exactly the same. Why don't you waste a second of your own time
and try it yourself.

If you seriously think you can convince people that have worked with this
for years and know the bugs and limitations otherwise, you are pretty
arrogant

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Total B.S.

There are still lots of pages in IE 6 that don't display properly in
Firefox....

That fact that you easily can point to reference sites shows me that you
are
just a book worm and not a real life programmer who can actually admit
that
XHTML didn't work all the time when you converted over.
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
if you don't believe me then look at the compatability listing

http://www.xmlsoftware.com/browsers.html

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>
>
> "John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>
>> "rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
once again those "bugs" they talk about are not because of XHTML but because
of CSS problems.. which does not prove XHTML is bad
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eI*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/

the original post....

BTW, it's known fact .NET developers have poor web skills and those on
thiese groups don't even have a web page and couldn't even code a web page
if they had to....just look at the personal web pages...looks like crap if
they even have one.

So they could even tell the difference if there pages break because they
look so crappy to begin with.

Most are BLOGS.....which means they DIDN'T even write, support or code
even
that web page...this means ZERO EXPERIENCE in WEB PAGES...thus these
naysayers should sit DOWN and just shut up and actually start making a web
page for once in their life.


"Bruce Wood" <br*******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
In all of this you haven't stated which browsers don't process XHTML
properly. You keep saying that it is not compatible, but you never give
any evidence.


Jul 21 '05 #35

P: n/a
Well, well. we seem to be getting somewhere here.

If what you say is so, then MS is wrong to be forcing XHTML as the default
setting knowing full well it will break some, if not many, ASP.NET web apps.
THus the reason for the white paper by MS themselves stating that IT WILL
BREAK and the reason we are doing it because of STANDARD'S SAKE.

WOW, such a great reason to break things in Beta 2. MS is essentially
saying, "It's ok if it doesn't work as long as it's standards compliant".
Total and complete nonsense...DO YOU HERE ME MICROSOFT? Someone from the
REAL WORLD is speaking to you. and trying to give you a dose of reality

"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OG*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
does safari and mozilla render pages exactly the same? no so drop it.
everyone has their own rendering scheme and no one is required to follow W3C exactly, W3C even says so on their own page. What they say is just a
recomendadtion

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Is this all browsers on the Mac?

Just because these say they are COMPLIANT doens't mean the web page will
display properly

Does stuff in IE 6 always display in Firefox correctly? NO. end of your
arguments
"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
the following browsers are XHTML 1.0 complient

* Amaya
* Mozilla
* FireFox 1.0
* Internet Explorer 5.0
* Internet Explorer 6.0
* Safari
* Opera

so please... once again... tell me what browsers you are talking about

that
arn't complient that using XHTML1.0 code will "break" compatability?

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>
>
> "John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>
>> "rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #36

P: n/a
if you really wanted MS to know about a problem, which They could care less
about this rant, mainly because it's not their problem they are makeing a
development language that follows a standard. You should post it to MSDN not
here, because like ive already said MICRSOFT DOES NOT READ THESE NEWGROUPS!
maybe you can get that through your thick skull finally? They have an entire
system at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/default.aspx where you can
report suggestions bugs and comments.. so make something out of your
pathetic attempt at a post and tell them directly, not hoping that ms would
even read these groups, which they don't. That link will send your comment
DIRECTLY to the VS development team and they WILL comment on it and give you
a response.
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Well, well. we seem to be getting somewhere here.

If what you say is so, then MS is wrong to be forcing XHTML as the default
setting knowing full well it will break some, if not many, ASP.NET web
apps.
THus the reason for the white paper by MS themselves stating that IT WILL
BREAK and the reason we are doing it because of STANDARD'S SAKE.

WOW, such a great reason to break things in Beta 2. MS is essentially
saying, "It's ok if it doesn't work as long as it's standards compliant".
Total and complete nonsense...DO YOU HERE ME MICROSOFT? Someone from the
REAL WORLD is speaking to you. and trying to give you a dose of reality

"Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OG*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
does safari and mozilla render pages exactly the same? no so drop it.
everyone has their own rendering scheme and no one is required to follow

W3C
exactly, W3C even says so on their own page. What they say is just a
recomendadtion

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is this all browsers on the Mac?
>
> Just because these say they are COMPLIANT doens't mean the web page
> will
> display properly
>
> Does stuff in IE 6 always display in Firefox correctly? NO. end of
> your
> arguments
>
>
> "Brian Henry" <no****@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> the following browsers are XHTML 1.0 complient
>>
>> * Amaya
>> * Mozilla
>> * FireFox 1.0
>> * Internet Explorer 5.0
>> * Internet Explorer 6.0
>> * Safari
>> * Opera
>>
>> so please... once again... tell me what browsers you are talking about
> that
>> arn't complient that using XHTML1.0 code will "break" compatability?
>>
>> "rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "John Timney (ASP.NET MVP)" <ti*****@despammed.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ef**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >> "rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> >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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #37

P: n/a


"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eT*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

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.....


RHAT - List the browsers and versions of those browsers that XHTML won't
work in. Otherwise SHUT UP.

Mike Ober.

And Yes, I code for a living.

Jul 21 '05 #38

P: n/a

Interesting, I just attempted to tracert rhat's servers and got no DNS
replies.

Mike Ober.

Jul 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
You know, I've noticed over the years that whenever I called something
STUPID, I later discovered, after I learned a little more about what I was
bitching about, that I just didn't understand the problem...

The same thing could possibly be happening here.

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.


Jul 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> schrieb:
[...]


Rules of Conduct
<URL:http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx>

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Jul 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
rhat wrote:
never ending learning process? here?......if you were really in the real
world you would be here then, this is a holiday.....you would be taking a
break, not posting on a off day.


Just because you write a big ass application doesn't mean you know
everything there is to know about some programming language. This is the
reason I monitor newsgroups to spot things and problems I have not
thought of or did not encounter so far.

And I don't know where you are, but over here it's not a holiday.
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
Jul 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
rhat wrote:
Well, well. we seem to be getting somewhere here.

If what you say is so, then MS is wrong to be forcing XHTML as the default
setting knowing full well it will break some, if not many, ASP.NET web apps.
THus the reason for the white paper by MS themselves stating that IT WILL
BREAK and the reason we are doing it because of STANDARD'S SAKE.

WOW, such a great reason to break things in Beta 2. MS is essentially
saying, "It's ok if it doesn't work as long as it's standards compliant".
Total and complete nonsense...DO YOU HERE ME MICROSOFT? Someone from the
REAL WORLD is speaking to you. and trying to give you a dose of reality


I'm just glad MS is finally adhering to some standard. The reason why
pages display in IE and not in another browser is just because IE
doesn't really compy with standards and thus people do IE specific stuff.

So if enforcing a standard breaks your applications just means you
weren't following standards in the first place.

--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
Jul 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> schrieb:
There are still lots of pages in IE 6 that don't display properly in
Firefox....


Mhm... I have never seen a severe case where a browser was able to render a
non-well-formed HTML document but failed in rendering an according XHTML
document. As Brian says, the main problem is CSS support, not support for
XHTML. Firefox' supports larger parts of CSS than MSIE, and MSIE has some
CSS-related bugs like the box-model bug. The problem I see is that you are
designing websites for MSIE and are consequently wondering why they don't
work in another browser.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Jul 21 '05 #44

P: n/a
> In the REAL WORLD, 90% is NOT good enough...just like 99% is NOT GOOD
ENOUGH


As mostly is done by people who have this standard, never produce a program.
(You never know what will change tomorrow)

Just my thought,

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #45

P: n/a
Rhat,
......if you were really in the real world you would be here then, this is
a holiday.....


It is clear, you are living in a small world, which is not the world from
the most visitors to this newsgroups (from which a lot live in the same
country as you). Therefore probably the misunderstandings.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #46

P: n/a
The reason why you haven't is because you spend all day here in the
newsgroups.

Do you really have an idea how the real world works? probably not
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> schrieb:
There are still lots of pages in IE 6 that don't display properly in
Firefox....
Mhm... I have never seen a severe case where a browser was able to render

a non-well-formed HTML document but failed in rendering an according XHTML
document. As Brian says, the main problem is CSS support, not support for
XHTML. Firefox' supports larger parts of CSS than MSIE, and MSIE has some
CSS-related bugs like the box-model bug. The problem I see is that you are designing websites for MSIE and are consequently wondering why they don't
work in another browser.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Jul 21 '05 #47

P: n/a
well, the people here in these newsgroups spend all their days here, day in
and day out, blabbing away, and NOT really solving problems NOR are they
accountable for their decision....and that's why they are here, cause they
can't handle the real world
"Tom Dacon" <td****@community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OW*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You know, I've noticed over the years that whenever I called something
STUPID, I later discovered, after I learned a little more about what I was
bitching about, that I just didn't understand the problem...

The same thing could possibly be happening here.

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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/netframewo...etfxcompat.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.



Jul 21 '05 #48

P: n/a
Wow, you have raised a nice bit of discussion here. :-)
Requested by WHO? And for WHAT REASON?
I have to say that I don't know all of them (though as a member of
AspInsiders group I've been also requesting and testing these features in
front rows). :-) But I can guarantee that there has been many of them (not
just our group or MVPS but also the ig customers of MS) and I strongly
believe it is to the better direction and to a damn lot better..

Think about developing a publishing system/CMS). There's no way that you'd
be able to handle all the possible variations what there can be in HTML
support today. It's just how it goes, one single clear standard is better
than bunch of incomplete implementations.
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.


It is all still configurable (as other guys in these groups have pointed out
too). I can't see what's so hard in it. You should have issues with v1 also
with this argumentation.

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU


Jul 21 '05 #49

P: n/a
MVP --> Most VALUELESS Professional (those who can't make in the real world
but spend endless days on the newsgroups thinking they are smart because
they are able to answer the same trivial questions over and over again.,
thereby getting rewarded by MS with an essentially "WORTHLESS" award of 3
letter to add to their signature and all the while STILL, after ALL THESE
YEARS can't get or KEEP a job because all that knowledge doesn't work in the
real world

BETTER:
MWP --> Most WORTHLESS PROFESSIONAL

Get a LIFE and stop hanging around in the newsgroups as see how the real
world works.

You guys are some of the more incompetent people out there. ALL BOOKS, ALL
KNOWLEDGE, ALL THEORY, blah blah, blah

DEAR MVP/MWP:

HERE, READ UP

CODE OF CONDUCT IN THE REAL WORLD:
Actually get it to work and not sit around day in and day out, talking about
problems and theory.
Actually be accountable and responsible for the decisions you make as
opposed to sitting around in the newsgroups "suggesting things and
architecture"
Actually code something that the real world people can use and get PAID
doing it.

The list can go on and on.


"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:O1**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"rhat" <no***@hotmail.com> schrieb:
[...]


Rules of Conduct
<URL:http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx>

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Jul 21 '05 #50

119 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.