| Groups | Blog | Home |
asp.net : How to get valid XHTML from the framework????
I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation errors in framework-produced code. I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the following... <script> <!-- function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); } // --> </script> which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. -- Alan Silver
Alan,
Thank you for making the internet a more useable place for the <1% that need XHTML conformance today. Sincerely DWS [quoted text, click to view] "Alan Silver" wrote:
> Hello, > > I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've > just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation > errors in framework-produced code. > > I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the > framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this > doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. > > I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the > following... > > <script> > <!-- > function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { > WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process > NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); > } > // --> > </script> > > which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. > > Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've > hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. > > -- > Alan Silver > (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Thus wrote DWS,
[quoted text, click to view] > Alan, > Thank you for making the internet a more useable place for the <1% > that need XHTML conformance today. There are rules and regulations in certain countries that stipulate the use of valid XHTML, e.g. to allow for accessibility technologies like screen readers. You probably don't care, but you're customer may do... Cheers, -- Joerg Jooss news-reply@joergjooss.de
type is not required. you can supply a meta tag default the script type.
<META http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript"> -- bruce (sqlwork.com) [quoted text, click to view] "Alan Silver" <alan-silver@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message news:8Ef3AeLjw66DFwBM@nospamthankyou.spam... > Hello, > > I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've > just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation > errors in framework-produced code. > > I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the > framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this > doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. > > I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the > following... > > <script> > <!-- > function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { > WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process > NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); > } > // --> > </script> > > which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. > > Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've > hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. > > -- > Alan Silver > (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Hi Alan,
I have found a few XHTML bugs too. As a custom control developer, I don't have any choice but to try to get 100% compliance of my web controls. I've used the Microsoft bug reporting system to notify them about bugs. Its essential that you do the same. You can get to it here: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/ProductFeedback/default.aspx --- Peter Blum www.PeterBlum.com Email: PLBlum@PeterBlum.com Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx [quoted text, click to view] "Alan Silver" <alan-silver@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message news:8Ef3AeLjw66DFwBM@nospamthankyou.spam... > Hello, > > I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've > just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation > errors in framework-produced code. > > I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the > framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this > doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. > > I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the > following... > > <script> > <!-- > function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { > WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process > NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); > } > // --> > </script> > > which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. > > Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've > hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. > > -- > Alan Silver > (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
In article <453FBF24-8B85-4C93-A604-D3F1AC8B6F86@microsoft.com>, DWS
<DWS@discussions.microsoft.com> writes [quoted text, click to view] >Alan, >Thank you for making the internet a more useable place for the <1% that need >XHTML conformance today. What was the point of this comment? If you don't have anything sensible to say, please don't bother. [quoted text, click to view] >Sincerely >DWS > > > > > >"Alan Silver" wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've >> just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation >> errors in framework-produced code. >> >> I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the >> framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this >> doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. >> >> I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the >> following... >> >> <script> >> <!-- >> function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { >> WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process >> NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); >> } >> // --> >> </script> >> >> which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. >> >> Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've >> hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. >> >> -- >> Alan Silver >> (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) >> -- Alan Silver
In article <OkB9qRmLGHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, Bruce Barker
<brubar_nospamplease_@safeco.com> writes [quoted text, click to view] >type is not required. you can supply a meta tag default the script type. > > <META http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript"> Thanks, but this didn't help. The script tag itself still needs a type attribute for validity. Any other ideas? Other than not using the treeview altogether!! Thanks. [quoted text, click to view] >-- bruce (sqlwork.com) > > >"Alan Silver" <alan-silver@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message >news:8Ef3AeLjw66DFwBM@nospamthankyou.spam... >> Hello, >> >> I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've >> just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation >> errors in framework-produced code. >> >> I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the >> framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this >> doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. >> >> I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the >> following... >> >> <script> >> <!-- >> function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { >> WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process >> NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); >> } >> // --> >> </script> >> >> which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. >> >> Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've >> hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. >> >> -- >> Alan Silver >> (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) > > -- Alan Silver
In article <uUOTUwmLGHA.3100@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Peter Blum
<PLBlum@Blum.info> writes [quoted text, click to view] >Hi Alan, > >I have found a few XHTML bugs too. As a custom control developer, I don't >have any choice but to try to get 100% compliance of my web controls. > >I've used the Microsoft bug reporting system to notify them about bugs. Its >essential that you do the same. Thanks. Have you had any success using this? I submitted a couple of (admittedly minor) bug reports using this, and there hasn't been the slightest hint of anyone taking any notice of them. Ta ra [quoted text, click to view] >You can get to it here: >http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/ProductFeedback/default.aspx > >--- Peter Blum >www.PeterBlum.com >Email: PLBlum@PeterBlum.com >Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at >http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx > >"Alan Silver" <alan-silver@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message >news:8Ef3AeLjw66DFwBM@nospamthankyou.spam... >> Hello, >> >> I thought that ASP.NET 2.0 was supposed to output valid XHTML 1.0. I've >> just spent a very frustrating time trying to fix all the validation >> errors in framework-produced code. >> >> I posted previously (but haven't had any replies yet) about the >> framework adding a "name" attribute to the form, even though this >> doesn't exist in XHTML 1.0. >> >> I've now discovered that when you use a treeview, it adds the >> following... >> >> <script> >> <!-- >> function TreeView_PopulateNodeDoCallBack(context,param) { >> WebForm_DoCallback(context.data.treeViewID,param,TreeView_Process >> NodeData,context,TreeView_ProcessNodeData,false); >> } >> // --> >> </script> >> >> which is invalid as the <script> tag needs a "type" attribute. >> >> Anyone know if there's a way of getting it to produce valid XHTML? I've >> hardly started, and I've already found quite a few validation issues. >> >> -- >> Alan Silver >> (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) > > -- Alan Silver
In article <uUOTUwmLGHA.3100@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, Peter Blum
<PLBlum@Blum.info> writes [quoted text, click to view] >I have found a few XHTML bugs too. As a custom control developer, I >don't have any choice but to try to get 100% compliance of my web >controls. Have you ever seen a "name" attribute added to the form? I am having this problem at the moment and can't see how to fix it. My server side code is... <form id="Form1" runat="server"> ....and the resulting output looks like... <form name="aspnetForm" method="post" action="Default.aspx" id="aspnetForm"> Ever seen this? It's stopping my pages from validating. Any suggestions as to how to avoid it would be very welcome. -- Alan Silver
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |