input type="radio" ASP.net bug

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • David Cameron

    input type="radio" ASP.net bug

    I noticed
    that using an HTMLInputRadioB utton and specifying a value to be an empty
    string (""), this is overridden by ASP.Net which set the value of the
    control to be the same as the ID of the control.

    See the code below

    * Page.aspx:
    <%@ Page language="c#" Codebehind="Tes t.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup ="false"
    Inherits="Websp ace.Test" %>

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Test</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    </head>

    <body>

    <input type="radio" runat="server" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button1"
    value="1">Yes
    <input type="radio" runat="server" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2"
    value=""> No

    </body>
    </html>

    * Page.aspx.cs
    using System;
    using System.Text;
    using System.Collecti ons;
    using System.Componen tModel;
    using System.Data;
    using System.Drawing;
    using System.Web;
    using System.Web.Sess ionState;
    using System.Web.UI;
    using System.Web.UI.H tmlControls;

    namespace Webspace
    {
    /// <summary>
    /// Asp.Net bug demonstration
    /// </summary>
    public class Test : System.Web.UI.P age
    {
    protected HtmlInputRadioB utton Button1;
    protected HtmlInputRadioB utton Button2;

    private void Page_Load(objec t sender, System.EventArg s e)
    {
    }
    }
    }

    this generates:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Test</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    </head>

    <body>

    <input value="1" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button1" type="radio" />Yes
    <input value="Button2" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2" type="radio" /> No

    </body>
    </html>

    I consider this to be a bug, although it may be by design. ASP.net is
    clearly overriding a value I have specified. Has anyone else experienced
    this, or have any suggestions?
  • Kevin Spencer

    #2
    Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

    Hi David,

    It is not a bug. According to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt, the
    "value" attribute of an HTML radio button is required. That is, it cannot be
    blank, or non-existent. This is also true of a checkbox. The reason for the
    radio button's value being required is that a radio button group has a
    single value, and that value is the value of the radio button in the group
    that is checked. A blank string, in terms of a form POST submission, is a
    non-existent value. Therefore, your value must be at least 1 character in
    size. ASP.Net knows about this, and corrects it by assigning the radio
    button's unique ID to the value property.

    --
    HTH,

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

    "David Cameron" <David Cameron@discuss ions.microsoft. com> wrote in message
    news:EE59A5F9-ADBD-4705-81DA-429E3BEF6A4D@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
    >I noticed
    > that using an HTMLInputRadioB utton and specifying a value to be an empty
    > string (""), this is overridden by ASP.Net which set the value of the
    > control to be the same as the ID of the control.
    >
    > See the code below
    >
    > * Page.aspx:
    > <%@ Page language="c#" Codebehind="Tes t.aspx.cs" AutoEventWireup ="false"
    > Inherits="Websp ace.Test" %>
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <title>Test</title>
    > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    > </head>
    >
    > <body>
    >
    > <input type="radio" runat="server" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button1"
    > value="1">Yes
    > <input type="radio" runat="server" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2"
    > value=""> No
    >
    > </body>
    > </html>
    >
    > * Page.aspx.cs
    > using System;
    > using System.Text;
    > using System.Collecti ons;
    > using System.Componen tModel;
    > using System.Data;
    > using System.Drawing;
    > using System.Web;
    > using System.Web.Sess ionState;
    > using System.Web.UI;
    > using System.Web.UI.H tmlControls;
    >
    > namespace Webspace
    > {
    > /// <summary>
    > /// Asp.Net bug demonstration
    > /// </summary>
    > public class Test : System.Web.UI.P age
    > {
    > protected HtmlInputRadioB utton Button1;
    > protected HtmlInputRadioB utton Button2;
    >
    > private void Page_Load(objec t sender, System.EventArg s e)
    > {
    > }
    > }
    > }
    >
    > this generates:
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <title>Test</title>
    > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    > </head>
    >
    > <body>
    >
    > <input value="1" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button1" type="radio" />Yes
    > <input value="Button2" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2" type="radio" /> No
    >
    > </body>
    > </html>
    >
    > I consider this to be a bug, although it may be by design. ASP.net is
    > clearly overriding a value I have specified. Has anyone else experienced
    > this, or have any suggestions?[/color]


    Comment

    • David Cameron

      #3
      Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

      Thanks for the reply.

      After reading the RFC, it specifies that for a radio button and a checkbox
      both the value and the name are required ("The NAME and VALUE attributes are
      required as for check boxes"). Interestingly using the W3C online validator,
      this code passes validation both with an empty string as the value and
      without a value at all. However, by specifying a blank value I have complied
      with the RFC. The value attribute there.

      Also I disagree that a blank string in terms of post submission is not a
      non-existant value. Reading the headers of the POST, it is clear that the
      value is passed through, and that the value is an empty string. This is the
      difference between a Database NULL value and an empty string.

      I maintain that this is a bug, and that ASP.Net should distinguish between
      when the value hasn't been set (eg <input name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2"
      type="radio" />) and when the value has been set to an empty string (eg
      <input value="" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2" type="radio" />).

      "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
      [color=blue]
      > Hi David,
      >
      > It is not a bug. According to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt, the
      > "value" attribute of an HTML radio button is required. That is, it cannot be
      > blank, or non-existent. This is also true of a checkbox. The reason for the
      > radio button's value being required is that a radio button group has a
      > single value, and that value is the value of the radio button in the group
      > that is checked. A blank string, in terms of a form POST submission, is a
      > non-existent value. Therefore, your value must be at least 1 character in
      > size. ASP.Net knows about this, and corrects it by assigning the radio
      > button's unique ID to the value property.[/color]

      Comment

      • Kevin Spencer

        #4
        Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

        > After reading the RFC, it specifies that for a radio button and a checkbox[color=blue]
        > both the value and the name are required ("The NAME and VALUE attributes
        > are
        > required as for check boxes"). Interestingly using the W3C online
        > validator,
        > this code passes validation both with an empty string as the value and
        > without a value at all. However, by specifying a blank value I have
        > complied
        > with the RFC. The value attribute there.[/color]

        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.
        [color=blue]
        > Also I disagree that a blank string in terms of post submission is not a
        > non-existant value. Reading the headers of the POST, it is clear that the
        > value is passed through, and that the value is an empty string. This is
        > the
        > difference between a Database NULL value and an empty string.[/color]

        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.
        [color=blue]
        > I maintain that this is a bug, and that ASP.Net should distinguish between
        > when the value hasn't been set (eg <input name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2"
        > type="radio" />) and when the value has been set to an empty string (eg
        > <input value="" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2" type="radio" />).[/color]

        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.

        --
        HTH,

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

        "David Cameron" <DavidCameron@d iscussions.micr osoft.com> wrote in message
        news:9C71EB7A-A74B-4220-B634-5AE1D663C2EC@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
        > Thanks for the reply.
        >
        > After reading the RFC, it specifies that for a radio button and a checkbox
        > both the value and the name are required ("The NAME and VALUE attributes
        > are
        > required as for check boxes"). Interestingly using the W3C online
        > validator,
        > this code passes validation both with an empty string as the value and
        > without a value at all. However, by specifying a blank value I have
        > complied
        > with the RFC. The value attribute there.
        >
        > Also I disagree that a blank string in terms of post submission is not a
        > non-existant value. Reading the headers of the POST, it is clear that the
        > value is passed through, and that the value is an empty string. This is
        > the
        > difference between a Database NULL value and an empty string.
        >
        > I maintain that this is a bug, and that ASP.Net should distinguish between
        > when the value hasn't been set (eg <input name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2"
        > type="radio" />) and when the value has been set to an empty string (eg
        > <input value="" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2" type="radio" />).
        >
        > "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
        >[color=green]
        >> Hi David,
        >>
        >> It is not a bug. According to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt, the
        >> "value" attribute of an HTML radio button is required. That is, it cannot
        >> be
        >> blank, or non-existent. This is also true of a checkbox. The reason for
        >> the
        >> radio button's value being required is that a radio button group has a
        >> single value, and that value is the value of the radio button in the
        >> group
        >> that is checked. A blank string, in terms of a form POST submission, is a
        >> non-existent value. Therefore, your value must be at least 1 character in
        >> size. ASP.Net knows about this, and corrects it by assigning the radio
        >> button's unique ID to the value property.[/color][/color]


        Comment

        • Kevin Spencer

          #5
          Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

          Hi David,

          To be completely truthful, some of my original reply was conjecture. That
          is, the explanation that the RFC requires a value for a radio button was
          fact. My explanation of why the RFC requires this was conjecture. So, I
          could be wrong about the "why" of it.

          In either case, Microsoft is not going to consider their model for the
          RadioButtonCont rol a bug, and your best bet, if you want to use a blank
          value in a radio button control is to create your own.

          --
          HTH,

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

          "David Cameron" <DavidCameron@d iscussions.micr osoft.com> wrote in message
          news:9C71EB7A-A74B-4220-B634-5AE1D663C2EC@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
          > Thanks for the reply.
          >
          > After reading the RFC, it specifies that for a radio button and a checkbox
          > both the value and the name are required ("The NAME and VALUE attributes
          > are
          > required as for check boxes"). Interestingly using the W3C online
          > validator,
          > this code passes validation both with an empty string as the value and
          > without a value at all. However, by specifying a blank value I have
          > complied
          > with the RFC. The value attribute there.
          >
          > Also I disagree that a blank string in terms of post submission is not a
          > non-existant value. Reading the headers of the POST, it is clear that the
          > value is passed through, and that the value is an empty string. This is
          > the
          > difference between a Database NULL value and an empty string.
          >
          > I maintain that this is a bug, and that ASP.Net should distinguish between
          > when the value hasn't been set (eg <input name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2"
          > type="radio" />) and when the value has been set to an empty string (eg
          > <input value="" name="RadioButt ons" id="Button2" type="radio" />).
          >
          > "Kevin Spencer" wrote:
          >[color=green]
          >> Hi David,
          >>
          >> It is not a bug. According to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt, the
          >> "value" attribute of an HTML radio button is required. That is, it cannot
          >> be
          >> blank, or non-existent. This is also true of a checkbox. The reason for
          >> the
          >> radio button's value being required is that a radio button group has a
          >> single value, and that value is the value of the radio button in the
          >> group
          >> that is checked. A blank string, in terms of a form POST submission, is a
          >> non-existent value. Therefore, your value must be at least 1 character in
          >> size. ASP.Net knows about this, and corrects it by assigning the radio
          >> button's unique ID to the value property.[/color][/color]


          Comment

          • David Cameron

            #6
            Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

            Thanks for taking the time to answer.
            [color=blue]
            > 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.[/color]

            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@w3.org, 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.
            [color=blue]
            > 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.[/color]

            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.
            [color=blue]
            > 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.[/color]

            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.or g/check?uri=http% 3A%2F%2Fmsdn.mi crosoft.com%2Fn ewsgroups%2Fdef ault.aspx%3Fdg% 3Dmicrosoft.pub lic.dotnet.fram ework.aspnet%26 mid%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.

            Comment

            • Kevin Spencer

              #7
              Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

              If the standard has changed, or if the Microsoft understanding of the
              standard is incorrect, look for a change in the next (or following) version
              of the CLR. From what I've learned, Microsoft is concentrating more on XHTML
              than on existing implementations of HTML. This is a good thing, as HTML will
              ultimately be replaced with XHTML. In the meantime, however, as difficult as
              it is to keep up, I do believe Microsoft is doing their best to do so.
              Remember that the .Net platform 1.1 is several years old, and took several
              years to build.
              [color=blue]
              > 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[/color]

              It is a change, but it has been occurring over a number of years with
              increasing speed. It started sometime around the year 1998 - 2000. I have
              personally observed quite a bit of movement in quite a number of products
              and technologies over the past 5 years.

              I can't argue with you about IE. IE has fallen behind quite a bit, but
              almost entirely due to its critical role in the Windows operating system.
              This prevents IE from being rolled out as quickly and regularly as competing
              browsers, and makes modifying it complex and difficult. In addition, it is
              important to remember that Microsoft makes a huge amount of software, and
              much of it interoperates with other Microsoft software. Microsoft employs
              over 50,000 people, and making changes in their products doesn't happen "on
              a dime."

              The Microsoft web site is one of the worst examples of the slowness of this
              progress. Even as a fan of Microsoft, I generally prefer to use FireFox, but
              whenever I go to the Microsoft site, I use IE because of the poor support
              for non-IE browsers there. On the other hand, it is possibly the single
              largest web site in the world, and will take time to adapt. I expect it
              will.

              I have been one of the most ardent advocates with Microsoft, in my
              interactions with them, for the adoption and support of external CSS style
              sheets, for about 4 years now. I have seen this in ASP.Net 2.0, and
              not-yet-released versions of other products which I am not at liberty to
              discuss. Have I been frustrated by the speed with which they have done this?
              Very.

              Still, Microsoft has openly committed to following standards, and I expect
              them to continue to do so. Transact-SQL, the SQL flavor used by Microsoft
              SQL Server, more closely conforms to ISO SQL than any other flavor that I've
              seen, although MySQL is pretty close. The .Net platform 2.0 certainly has
              made quite a number of standards-based changes, all of which I'm sure we
              will all welcome. The next version of IE (IE 7) is now available as a beta 1
              download, and although it behaves much like any other beta 1 software (in
              other words, don't install it on a production machine!), it shows a lot of
              promise.

              In the meantime, it would take you about 30 minutes to write your own radio
              button Control, and my guess is, it would be an eye-opening experience for
              you. The built-in ASP.Net Controls were never intended by Microsoft to be
              the only Server Controls used by developers. There is an entire section in
              the .Net SDK on how to develop your own. See:



              --
              HTH,

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

              "David Cameron" <DavidCameron@d iscussions.micr osoft.com> wrote in message
              news:E6DB8564-6F87-4EB1-B08C-2E85199DF88C@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
              > Thanks for taking the time to answer.
              >[color=green]
              >> 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.[/color]
              >
              > 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@w3.org, 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.
              >[color=green]
              >> 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.[/color]
              >
              > 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.
              >[color=green]
              >> 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.[/color]
              >
              > 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.or g/check?uri=http% 3A%2F%2Fmsdn.mi crosoft.com%2Fn ewsgroups%2Fdef ault.aspx%3Fdg% 3Dmicrosoft.pub lic.dotnet.fram ework.aspnet%26 mid%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.[/color]


              Comment

              • David Cameron

                #8
                Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

                Thanks again for the honest reply. I do appreciate the time you have spent on
                this.

                What you say is entirely correct, and I understand that it can take some
                timefor Microsoft to make changes, given the age of ASP.Net, and of couse the
                possibility that it may break existing applications.

                Yes, Microsoft has also produced some products that do really follow the
                standards. You've named T-SQL. They have also consistently produced one of
                the most (if not the most) standards compliant C++ compilers.

                That aside, I've written a few controls, mostly specific to the application
                I am working on.

                Comment

                • Kevin Spencer

                  #9
                  Re: input type=&quot;radi o&quot; ASP.net bug

                  > That aside, I've written a few controls, mostly specific to the[color=blue]
                  > application
                  > I am working on.[/color]

                  I've written a few myself! Actually, I rather enjoy doing it. It's a
                  challenge to design something for reusability. And I must admit, I'm more of
                  a back-end guy myself. Still, writing reusable interface classes is just as
                  much fun in a different way as writing business classes.

                  --
                  HTH,

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

                  "David Cameron" <DavidCameron@d iscussions.micr osoft.com> wrote in message
                  news:4A4DBF37-5AB7-46E4-988C-A52126DED7B8@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
                  > Thanks again for the honest reply. I do appreciate the time you have spent
                  > on
                  > this.
                  >
                  > What you say is entirely correct, and I understand that it can take some
                  > timefor Microsoft to make changes, given the age of ASP.Net, and of couse
                  > the
                  > possibility that it may break existing applications.
                  >
                  > Yes, Microsoft has also produced some products that do really follow the
                  > standards. You've named T-SQL. They have also consistently produced one of
                  > the most (if not the most) standards compliant C++ compilers.
                  >
                  > That aside, I've written a few controls, mostly specific to the
                  > application
                  > I am working on.[/color]


                  Comment

                  Working...