Validation and Firefox(js scripts doesn''t fire)

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

.Net is an advanced system that is run on MS/Windows platform only ! Period

I wonder what :

http://go-mono.com/archive/xsp-0.10.html
and
http://httpd.apache.org/cli/mod_aspdotnet

are all about... ?

ASP.NET also runs on FreeBSD, with the same XSP server :
http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?bsd-sharp

Please update your information.



Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Heck no, it's for everybody! :-D

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Well, Peter, perhaps "incomplete" is a more appropriate term. Still, the
problem you pointed out is serious, and it's good to know where to find the
necessary fixes. I will forward the information to our UI guy!

I've been rather astounded with .Net 2.0 in general, including ASP.Net 2.0.
Microsoft has improved an already excellent product by leaps and bounds.
Lately I've been having a lot of fun with Generics.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

There is some incorrect information being given here.

Here are the facts:
1. ASP.NET 1.x outputs DHTML based scripts. Specifically, it uses
document.all[] to locate an element on the page. FireFox/Mozilla and most
other browsers use the W3C DOM standard, which does not have the
document.all[] statement.
Whether or not you setup browsercaps or event <@ Page
clientTarget="upLevel">, you still will not change how the web controls
identify their validators in the client-side Page_Validators array or
within the WebUIValidation.js file.
For more details, see:
http://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/051204-1.aspx

2. Several vendors, including myself, have created replacements for the
validators that does handle most browsers in ASP.NET 1.x. My solution is
Professional Validation And More (http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx).
The article references another free solution, Paul Glavich's DOM
Validators. My software is more of a general upgrade to validation, not
just a fix to this particular problem.

3. ASP.NET 2.0 has been fixed to address their limitation. They are now
using document.getElementById() which is W3C DOM compliant.

--- Peter Blum
www.PeterBlum.com
Email: (e-mail address removed)
Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at
http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx

Incorrect! Period! See http://asptoday.com/Content.aspx?id=2339. It
explains how ASP.Net uses a config section called <browserCaps> to enable
the server-side components to interact with a variety of browsers. In
addition, it describes the problem with the version of browserCaps that
is installed with the .Net Framework 1.1. Finally, it details how to
rememdy the issue, and has a link to a complete and excellent browserCaps
config section that can be added to the machine.config file, and
instructions on how to do it!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

True, see Peter Blum's response (and fix). I haven't used the validators
(rolled my own), so I haven't had much experience in that area. Still, the
browserCaps do improve the appearance of the HTML in the target browsers
tremendously, particularly in the ara of CSS.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

 

[WJ]

And how do you know that the information really was validated client side?

I just described generically about common validation logics such as "field
is required".... Yes, serious stuffs must also be checked on the server. No
doubt.

The way I see it, client side validation is just a whistle and bell to
help the user fill out the form quicker.

Not really. JS is as serious as server side c# code. It provides good
experiences to your visitors. Example: If I have 20 fields that are mandate.
I rather have Required Validator controls done on site (client).

The actual decision about whether the post is good should be made sever
side.

Not always.

if you run a shopping site, you can't be so regimented. Imagine walking
into
a regular store and being turned away because you're wearing jeans.

Sure. You just tell your users that it will be a little bit slow (but it
works) if they do not use the MSIE (in this context).

John

 

[WJ]

<browserCaps>

Sound like "stitching" process in a sweat shop. A d/html page should be able
to handle simple client side JS to validate a "required field" on any modern
browsers (out of the box). Don't give me all these craps. It is very simple:
A browser war, a control process. No more no less.

John

 

[WJ]

re:

I wonder what :

http://go-mono.com/archive/xsp-0.10.html
and
http://httpd.apache.org/cli/mod_aspdotnet

are all about... ?

ASP.NET also runs on FreeBSD, with the same XSP server :
http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?bsd-sharp

Please update your information.

No thanks. In a perfect world, there should be many systems to choose from.
We already have a .Net system that mimics Java system. I would rather stick
with MS/.Net system because it is working on its Windows platform very well.
I would like to see the software industry to dream up something else to
rival .Net and Java. I sure don't feel very comfortable with monopoly!

John

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

A d/html page should be able to handle simple client side JS to validate a "required
field" on any modern browsers (out of the box).

How does a page validate anything client-side ?
Client-side validation requires a browser's interpretation.

The server can validate a page server-side,
but the client-side validation must be made by the browser.

The modification of the <browserCaps> section of web.config
*enables* that the correct dhtml is sent to those browsers which
don't interpret dhtml like IE does.




Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

Great side-stepping!

Your statement was :
You are flat-out wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that .NET
runs perfectly well on systems which are *not* MS/Windows platform.

Period.



Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

 

[Patrick.O.Ige]

Kevin
I was insane but i work up .
Are you in this mode sometimes too

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Sound like "stitching" process in a sweat shop. A d/html page should be

able to handle simple client side JS to validate a "required field" on any
modern browsers (out of the box). Don't give me all these craps. It is
very simple: A browser war, a control process. No more no less.

I suppose you might say the same thing about all of the other Configuration
elements stored in the many .Net Configuration files stored on the server
and in the web application itself.

The purpose of Configuration files is to be able to modify globally-used
data without having to create/compile/extend a new version of a class
library or assembly. Configuration files contain run-time settings, security
settings, paths, connection strings, and a host of other data that may
change at any time during the lifetime of an application. As browsers and
HTML are continually in the process of being developed, revised, enhanced,
and extended, and as the scheduling of changes to the many different types
of browsers used worldwide is in no way synchronized with other browser
releases, or the development cycle of the .Net platform, it is only logical
to make browser capabilities a Configuration element.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

We already have a .Net system that mimics Java system.

..Net no more mimics Java than the automobile mimics the horse and buggy.
Both the horse and buggy and the automobile have wheels. Both the horse and
buggy and the automobile have a passenger compartment. Both the horse and
buggy and the automobile have an "engine" that provides motility to the
vehicle. The automobile, however, is a vast improvement over the horse an
buggy, with greater power, more security, and a host of features that the
horse and buggy can not provide. The .Net platform is to Java what the
automobile is to the horse and buggy. It does not "mimic" Java. Rather, it
does what Java does, but it does it better, faster, and smarter than Java,
and it can do much MORE than Java.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

I was insane but i work up .

Are you in this mode sometimes too

Not as long as I take my meds! ;-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

 

[WJ]

Great side-stepping!

I think I answered your post right on target. I think you are one who
side-stepping, not me.

Your statement was :

You are flat-out wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that .NET
runs perfectly well on systems which are *not* MS/Windows platform.

And you kept avoiding my concern and or misunderstood my statement about
".Net runs on MS/Windows platform only"... and you kept referring me to
other silly mono thing. Yes, I am aware of these mono things, but Mono is
not cross-platform, it is a separate system that requires to be installed on
a separate OS (Unix/Linux). If one has to install more than one systems
(MS.Net and Mono.Net) on a single box to develop a same system using both
systems, then it is not considered as cross-platform. Here again, let me
explain to you: What I meant here is that a true "cross-platform" system
should be installed once, like Sun/Java system on a MS/Windows OS,
developers (you and I and others here) then develop our applications and
deploy our final products to other platforms of our choice.

IOW, MS should port .Net to other platform too, just like Sun/Java. Im
seating on one chair with one OS, one keyboard, & one mice, write a web form
that runs on both Windows and Unix ! I do not want to install another vendor
..Net system on my PC. it is silly to do that now a day, that is not
cross-platform, OK !

In short, my statement is still true: .Net fails do what Java can in term of
x-platform concept. That is: It can only run on Windows Oses.


John

 

[WJ]

re:

How does a page validate anything client-side ?
Client-side validation requires a browser's interpretation.

The server can validate a page server-side,
but the client-side validation must be made by the browser.

All I care is Java Script is universal, and it has been working on most
modern browsers that the current market offers. If it fails to validate a
simple "required field" request on the client browser, then it is broken,
incompatible, considered as a bug, monopoly, you name it. On top of that, if
the same page can implement onBlur and onFocus events using the same script
engine, then it should also work with the simple "required field" validator
component and I should not have to code browsercaps mess.

Why does it work on one and not the others ? Are Asp.Net Required Field
Validators using different JS engine than onBlur, onFocus, onDoubleClick...?
Why should I have to remember which one requires browsercap settings. That's
bad design my friend! NO GOOD!!!

John

 

[WJ]

mind-boggling

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

Mono is not cross-platform

But it is. It runs on Linux, FreeBSD, Unix, etc.

ASP.NET is also cross-platform, since it will run on different OS's.

re:

it is a separate system that requires to be installed on a separate OS (Unix/Linux).

Isn't that what "cross-platform" means ?
That the application will run on different platforms/OS's ?

re:

What I meant here is that a true "cross-platform" system should be installed once

What you should have meant is that a true "cross-platform"
system should be *compiled* once but, in practice, there's
tweaks for each platform which require re-compilation, even for Java.

re:

IOW, MS should port .Net to other platform too, just like Sun/Java.

MS's idea is that 3rd party developers can do the porting.
That way, .NET can be improved by 3rd party developers.

Java developers are frozen to Sun's specification for Java.

You may think that freezing specs is good.
I think it's not too good.

re:

.Net fails do what Java can in term of x-platform concept. That is: It can only run on
Windows Oses.

But, it *does* run on other OS's, as shown.
It does *not* only run on Windows.




Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:

All I care is Java Script is universal

You will have to live with, and die by, JavaScript, then.

re:

then it should also work with the simple "required field" validator component and I
should not have to code browsercaps mess.

But, it does work, as long as you identify the browser
and send it HTML/scripts it understands.

The whole "I shouldn't have to code" idea is just lazyness, to me.

I'm not saying that it should be harder/more complicated than
it needs to be, but requiring "no code" is just absurd.

That's how we make a living : by writing code!

Get used to it...or go to a different platform.
Then you''ll see what complex, *really hard to grasp* code is.




Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

All I care is Java Script is universal, and it has been working on most modern browsers
that the current market offers. If it fails to validate a simple "required field"
request on the client browser, then it is broken, incompatible, considered as a bug,
monopoly, you name it. On top of that, if the same page can implement onBlur and onFocus
events using the same script engine, then it should also work with the simple "required
field" validator component and I should not have to code browsercaps mess.

Why does it work on one and not the others ? Are Asp.Net Required Field Validators using
different JS engine than onBlur, onFocus, onDoubleClick...? Why should I have to
remember which one requires browsercap settings. That's bad design my friend! NO GOOD!!!

John

4

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

How about providing a reasoned rebuttal, instead of a trivial comment ?



Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
======================================

 

[gerry]

Hi ,

without jumping into the flames,
it sounds to me like people are saying that implementing the proper
browsercaps section within web.config should enable client side validation
on firefox ( and i assume netscape ? )

it is my experience that this is not so. no java script is renedered in
firefox regardless of these settings.
I have been used the browsercaps from
http://slingfive.com/pages/code/browserCaps for a long time now.
This does fix the html/css rendering issues but has not had any effect on
script renedering.

Am I misunderstanding this point or do I still have something incorrectly
configured somewhere ?

Gerry