Re: input type="radio" ASP.net bug

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

> Microsoft does not make decisions regarding their object models based on
> what passes in a W3C validator program. They make their decisions based upon
> the RFCs, which are the ultimate authority. This is logical. The Oxford
> Englidh dictionary is the ultimate authority regarding the spelling of any
> word in the English language. If Oxford were to put out a spell-checker
> application that happened to allow for incorrect spellings, due to the
> latency between the revision of the Dictionary and the revision of the
> spell-checker, the Dictionary would still be the authority. Or, as another
> example, the codified laws of the US are the ultimate authority regarding
> what is law. The judges that arbitrate cases are not. This is why we have
> courts of appeals. Judges make mistakes.

Don't give me that. W3C is the authorative source for HTML and CSS. That RFC
you have linked to is for HTML 2.0. If you read the blurb for the RFC it
states it is "Obsoleted by RFC2854". If you then read that RFC
(ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2854.txt) it states in the abstract:
"This document was prepared at the request of the W3C HTML working
group. Please send comments to www-html@xxxxxx, a public mailing list
with archive at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/>"
and later in the introduction:
"The IETF HTML working group closed Sep 1996, and work on defining
HTML moved to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The proposed
extensions were incorporated to some extent in [HTML32], and to a
larger extent in [HTML40]."

So W3C is the ultimate authority when it comes to HTML. Microsoft *should*
be making their decisions based on what passes the W3C validator.

> A blank string in an HTTP POST is a non-existent value, as EVERYTHING in an
> HTTP POST is a string. IOW, there is no distinction when referring to all
> string content between NULL and an empty string. The fact that the name is
> passed is irrelevant regarding this issue. In a database, or a programming
> platform, there are many different data types, and NULL is not a string.
> This is only possible because there are many different data types.

I don't think that the fact that the name is passed is irrelevant. I still
get a POSTed blank string. I have yet to see anything that suggests this is
non-standard behaviour. When running server side for ASP.net, PHP and asp
(the languages I have used in web development), there is a distinction in
POSTed data between an input whote value is an empty string and an input that
doesn't exist.

> As I have pointed out, for the 2 reasons specified and explained above, you
> may maintain your opinion until the cows come home, but Microsoft will not
> change the object model to suit an opinion. Microsoft is all about standards
> these days. They will conform to the standard. Of course, writing a custom
> radio button Server Control is a piece of cake, and you are free to "roll
> your own" for your own use.

Microsoft is about standards. Well that is a change. The IE team only agreed
to implement the CSS 2.* spec after significant pressure from the development
community (just read the comments on IE blog *before* they announced they
would support CSS 2.1). We could be generous and assume that they were going
to do it anyway, however nothing in any of the public statements regarding
IE's features suggested that they might. As for following standards, I submit
the following:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmsdn.microsoft.com%2Fnewsgroups%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fdg%3Dmicrosoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet%26mid%3D06e47415-8e7b-494f-8fa4-6839754ca9d0

Hoevere this is neither here nor there. As I understand the standard you
have posted, a blank string is a valid value. As you have stated in your
other comment, it is conjecture that a blank string in an invalid value.

Of couse there is an immediate fix, for this, as you suggested I can roll my
own. But I state again, I regard this as a bug in ASP.Net that seems to be
based a misreading of the standards.

If it isn't clear, I am also annoyed because I feel I am being given the run
around.
.

Quantcast