A few comments on your questions/comments above:
But the other majorly important thing is that Trident only uses "semi-standards" mode over quirks mode when the <!DTD> dec appears on the first line. The code in the video (which is the default page template) shows the dec on the 3rd line, so IE would ignore it and thus use the subtractive box model. (a Very Bad Thingtm)
The <!DTD> output ends up being the first line of markup content output by the .aspx page (since the <%@ Page %> directive is processed server side and does not generate any output). I'm looking into whether whitespace/line-breaks are used by IE based on your comment though -- i hadn't heard of that before and so might be something we need to change in the default template.
For instance, <button type="submit">Text</button> is preferred over <input type="submit" value="text" />, and I understand that some of the controls use a table element for layout purposes.
The <asp:button> control outputs the value as an attribute by default. You can, however, use the html element directly and apply a runat="server" attribute to store the text between the opening and closing elements (this control gives you exact control over the html output). Note that both approaches are XHTML legal... <g>
At 18:57 in the video, when you changed the "text" property of the button, I noticed that the value: "Push me again" wasn't fully delimited
Can you explain what you mean by this one? I'm not sure what you mean by not fully delimited? It could just be that the video didn't catch it clearly -- but I don't think there was any errors there.
Is the HTML4.01 on the DTD drop-down 4.01 Transitional or 4.01 Strict
The HTML4.01 in the drop-down list is 4.01 Transitional. We do have XHTML Transitional and Strict -- but haven't seen as much demand for 4.01 strict. As I mentioned in the video, it is easy to create your own validation/intellisense schemas (they are just XSD files that we read on tool startup). My sense is that we'll see a lot of communities support different schemas and optimized browsers/standards ship on the web once we ship.
When you said "<img src="foo.jpg" />" is valid HTML... wrong it's "consistently working HTML" yes... but it isn't valid, it has to have the alt="" attribute.
Technically it depends on what HTML schema you are validating against. I believe for HTML 3.2 it is technically legal to not have a alt attribute (although bad practice). For HTML 4.01 (including transitional), it is illegal.
Our intellisense validation engine will flag an <img> that does not have an alt attribute with a red-squigly indicating an error regardless of whether you run the accessibility checker when you have HTML 4.01 selected. For HTML 3.2 we won't flag it as an error until you run the accessibility checker.
AFAIK, the alt="" attribute is always required, you cannot substitute longdesc="" in its place.
Technically it depends on the schema you are validating against. You cannot be legal with HTML 4.01 without the alt="" attribute, but you can be legal with other html standards and still be accessibility compliant if you have the longdescr= attribute (note: our html 4.01 and xhtml schemas always promote usage of the the alt="" attribute -- so this is a fairly esoteric point).
As an aside -- one annoying thing is that the accessibility rules defined by 508 and especially WCAG are sometimes at odds with the guidelines defined by the HTML and XHTML commitees. This seems to be epecially true round suggested usages of client-side script.
When you resized that table cell, what code did it add? the "width=""" attribute, or did it add an inline CSS attribute?
We generate CSS in this case. Our designer shouldn't ever be generating deprecated markup anymore (no width attributes or <font> tags).
Is it too late to ask for element-specific coloring? I like my anchors in green, tables in turquise, and images in purple.
It is too late to ask for new features.
But thankfully we already added support for this and it is already in the product. You can control both the foreground and background colors of any element now.
Hows Intellisense for "Classic" ASP3.0? In VS2003 it detects, for example Scripting.FileSystem object... but not ADODB.Recordset, for example.
The intellisense engine for "classic" ASP hasn't been enhanced signficiantly. You pick up many of the new markup features for free, and the project system is now much more flexible (no need to add files to the project in order for them to show-up). But I don't think there is any additional support for doing late-bound intellisense of script based on COM object type.
We do, though, now support intellisense for <% %> and server-side code blocks for ASP.NET pages. If you use VB instead of VBScript you'll get full intellisense.
ASP.Net hasn't been around much, how much longer can you expect the innovation to continue before it stagnates and turns into another MS Office?
We've added thousands of new features in ASP.NET 2.0 over 1.x (which I think was itself very innovative). I think anyone who looks at 2.0 will leave very, very impressed. We plan to continue innovating away the next several releases as well.
When will we see URI Rewriting and Content Negociation built-in to IIS?
I did a talk a few weeks back on Channel 9 where i spent a little bit of time talking about some of the new things in IIS7. It is a major, major upgrade and now supports a rich extensibility architecture that makes scenarios like the ones you listed above (and hundreds more) now really easy.
Hope this helps,
P.S. My email address is email@example.com