Great to see that someone has finally helped MS technologies adhere to
the standards that the open source world has supported for years now. A
step in the right direction, deserving congratulations, but only a small
step.
Although Oxite may be open source in the strictest sense of the term,
Peter Goddard wrote:
It does require more effort than just using the standard control
toolkits supplied by Microsoft [...] Additionally, there are best
practices available which enable the placing of the server
generated javascript to one area of the page (after the html) and
JSON/AJAX/MVC
Both my previous and current employer are XHTML strict:
http://www.tesco.com/
http://becta.org.uk/
Tesco is a .net site.
Mike Foskett
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Anthony Milner
Sent: 08 October 2008 03:23
To:
I'm also a front end developer working with .NET all the time.
.NET is a BASTARD to get to validate. Its possible but its hard work1
Visual Studio changes case on things like onClick etc and whilst they are
not biggies they are frustrating. As Chris pointed out it pumps out heaps of
script and
Give this one a try.
http://www.mddus.com
I've just finished this off, I didn't do the mark up on this so please
ignore the standard, the only thing to note is it's .Net and it validates.
The only reason it might not validate is user content but as far as .Net
code goes there should be no
Tesco.com doesn't validate.
The Becta one does, but it's PHP.
The challenge continues!
On 08/10/2008 09:33, Foskett, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both my previous and current employer are XHTML strict:
http://www.tesco.com/
http://becta.org.uk/
Tesco is a .net site.
Mike Foskett
Sorry, I didn't test whole site. most of the sub folders has error.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:43 PM, sri ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check the image.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Gareth Senior [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Tesco.com doesn't validate.
The Becta one does, but it's PHP.
) 191 3774742
F: +44 (0) 191 3770769
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Todd Baker
Sent: 08 October 2008 13:01
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML
: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Anthony Milner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was having a *chat* with some .NET developer colleagues and they
challenged me to find a .NET site that achieves XHTML 1.0 strict
compliance. Hoping to prove to them
It can be done... although hard to achieve using the webforms .net, and
I found it hard to find an example!
Here is one that validates xhtml strict and is .Net:
http://www.miloclinic.com/
Ironically enough it's the blog that is in Wordpress that doesn't
validate! Although that is easy enough to
http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http://www.colorfastsigns.co.nz/Home_34.aspx
Robin Gorry
Senior Web Developer
Xplore Net Solutions
Xplore.net Website of the Week: Weleda (Australia) - www.weleda.com.au
Weleda has a range of anthroposophic medicine - the
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Robin Gorry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http://www.colorfastsigns.co.nz/Home_34.aspx
None of those sites validate.
***
List Guidelines:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Anthony Milner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I was having a *chat* with some .NET developer colleagues and they
challenged me to find a .NET site that achieves XHTML 1.0 strict
compliance. Hoping to prove to them that it can be done.
Does anybody know of some
Correction on these links:
http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http://www.colorfastsigns.co.nz/Home_34.aspx
The first fails as HTML 4.01 Strict - no good
The 2nd fails as HTML 4.01 Strict - no good
The 3rd fails as HTML 4.01 Transitional - no good
None are using
Those all have errors (and are HTML, not XHTML). The errors are minor,
but there are a number of them.
Robin Gorry wrote:
http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http://www.colorfastsigns.co.nz/Home_34.aspx
Robin Gorry
Senior Web Developer
Xplore Net Solutions
I'm not a .NET developer, so this question really made no sense to me. I
don't understand why it would matter if you're using .NET when trying to
produce valid XHTML 1.0 Strict pages.
So, anyways, I googled. This blog post was interesting:
sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Robin Gorry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http://www.colorfastsigns.co.nz/Home_34.aspx
None of those sites validate
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] .NET sites which are XHTML 1.0 strict
Those all have errors (and are HTML, not XHTML). The errors are minor,
but there are a number of them.
Robin Gorry wrote:
http://www.mucu4u.org.nz/Home_61.aspx
http://www.oneeast.co.nz/
http
18 matches
Mail list logo
