Re: Web Standards Evangelist Related Blogs?

On Friday, April 25, 2003, 12:36:17 PM, Don XML wrote:
> And yes I know that my blog site does not validate. It is written in
> ASP.Net, and that is one of the biggest compliants, you can't
> produce valid XHTML easily.

You can, from what I've seen (although I'm not an ASP.NET developer,
I've only played with it for a bit). You just have to keep clear of
the Web controls, which nobody forces you to use.

ASP.NET can be used just like ASP3, without the server-side controls
stuff. Some people say that's a fundamental part of it, but you can
still make working pages without it.

Or you can always re-write the controls to produce valid HTML, or
write your own ones from scratch.

> There is a core group of .Net developers trying to work on MS to
> make it easier to produce valid XHTML, but I'm looking for more fuel
> to add to the fire, and these blogs should help. 

Heh, MS have repeatedly stated that everything ASP.NET generates is
XHTML-compatible, clearly they think adding a forward-slash to the end
of every empty element is enough.

> The problem with ASP.Net is that they wanted it to render in almost
> any downlevel browser (like Netscape 3), so they sacrificed sticking
> to known standards. 

The problem is, they didn't even manage to stay compatible with IE6 -
if you disable scripting, that is. JavaScript pseudo-protocol links
pop up everywhere with ASP.NET (for instance, see the download links
on <http://asp.net/ibuyspy/download.aspx>).

I think ASP.NET should be viewed as a major target for evangelists,
there are more and more broken and invalid ASP.NET sites popping up
every day. It's easy development, at the cost of compliance and
accessibility.

-- 
Tom Gilder, http://tom.me.uk/
http://www.shelldesign.co.uk/

Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 09:25:28 UTC