Talk:ASP.NET

is ASP.net a compiled language?

Yes --WayneMokane 07:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes and No. ASP.NET must be compiled by the server (aka IIS) to a .NET common language runtime, from wich it will be interpreted by the server machine. But you don´t need to compile an ASP.NET file to run it on the server, the server does it for you. In this case, the answer is No. --Cedric.graebin 23:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, the assembly that is created from your pages is indeed compiled to MSIL, however, the JIT then kicks in during runtime and the corresponding machine code is cached and used on the next invocation.

NO -- The ASP.NET Portion is not compiled, but interpreted by the IIS web server. The parts that are compiled are written in a compilable language such as C# or VB.NET. These parts of the application are compiled on the server.

I beg to differ. Check your %WINDIR%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\%DOT_NET_VERSION%\Temporary ASP.NET Files folder. You'll see the end-result of the "ASP.NET Portion" translated to code (C# in may case) as well as the DLL that was generated. The end result is a compiled page, even if you don't do code-behind. - Chris 00:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, ASP.NET is not a language. Second, YES, all parts that made up an ASP.NET application are compiled, including plain-text .aspx files (they are compiled as the first request come into a .NET assembly ("dll") which is stored somewhere in a temporary folder). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.168.95.194 (talk • contribs) .

Hello...

ASP.NET is not a language.. its a .NET technology which enables server side programming for web development.. Infact ASP.NET should not be under the catagory ".NET programming languages"...

Exactly -- ASP.NET is just a set of classes which enable the programmer in writing web applications.

--Nawin

Minimo?

What does this mean?

Usually locks to Microsoft as server vendor, as free/open-source alternative Minimo can't handle all functionality

All I find for Minimo is a Mozilla-based browser, which isn't a server... —Josh Lee 03:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC) I think that it must be referring to the Mono development platform, an open-source .NET implementation interface that can run ASP.NET pages. Cedric S. Graebin 15:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Valid" XHTML?

Are you kidding? If it sends standard XHTML per default, MSIE support is broken -- MSIE 6.0 and earlier don't support XHTML 1.0 because they don't understand the MIME type and parse it as XML/HTML tagsoup. I don't think Microsoft would be that stupid.

If they send "valid" XHTML 1.0 (as in "source code validates", not as in "standards compliant") with a HTML MIME type, they are effectively violating the standard no less than if they continued to send proprietary HTML instead. -- 134.95.141.104 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (Ashmodai)[reply]

Please, tell me exactly WHERE in the XHTML standard is written down which MIME to use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.168.95.194 (talk • contribs) .

Look in the abstract section of http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/. However, that says that it SHOULD use application/xhtml+xml not MUST. A more definite violation is that all JavaScript blocks that ASP.NET internally generates are improperly escaped and won't work under true XHTML clients. Developer38 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"comprised" and "composed"

Warrens, you're correct in your definitions of comprise and compose and I'm not arguing using "comprise". However, the original text ("composed of") was correct. "comprised of" *is* incorrect. If you insist on using "comprise" (when the original is fine), use "comprises", not "comprised of". - Chris 20:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but the language is changing. So many people say "comprised of" that it's becoming acceptable. Personally I find it grates, but that's a sign one is growing old! ;-)

84.9.71.116 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft promotion?

"The numerous .NET controls, classes and tools can cut down on development time by providing a rich set of features for common programming tasks" -- sounds straight out of some Microsoft marketing blurb. A bit more neutrality please and more mentions of competing technologies. Not all readers are fans of the wondrous M$.

84.9.71.116 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on ASP.NET is not an appropriate place for a discussion about competing technologies, any more than the article on PHP or Ruby on Rails are. Warrens 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASP.NET 2.0 does not generate valid XHTML

This article is inaccurate in saying that "in version 2.0, all controls generate valid HTML 4.0, XHTML 1.0 (the default), or XHTML 1.1 output". The XHTML generated is not valid even in version 2.0. For example, all generated JavaScript is wrapped in HTML/XML comments () rather than XHTML CDATA blocks. This will pass the W3C validation tools, but the JavaScript code just won't work.Developer38 22:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, there should be a good, citable source that supports that claim. Citing such sources helps prevent reversions of such claims. The Rod (☎ Smith) 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can test this out for yourself. Create a simple ASP.NET page with one button and look at the generated source. You will see this error which Wikipedia lists as a common error on the XHTML page. I've seen other blogs point this out and I can prove it with the software. What exactly constitutes a valid citable source?

Developer38 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy says what I said. Is this a citable source? http://lachy.id.au/log/2005/05/script-comments

Developer38 19:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources to back up what's written in the articles. That you or I can fire up Visual Studio and recreate this situation (or are even so much as expected to in order to confirm anything written in an article) isn't good enough. This is a core tenet of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Warrens 02:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if blogs were valid sources, the one cited above does not say that the output is invalid XHTML. It merely discusses how the style of the XHTML causes problems in the way various UA's treat scripts or expect scripts to be treated. Neither does the "XHTML" article here say that the output of my ASP.NET page is not well-formed. The Rod (☎ Smith) 06:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]