Maybe you're just getting old gman?
Yeah, you really represent a minority with your thoughts, you make me think of that TV show "Grumpy old men".
Personally, I feel that things should go faster! Innovation is key in our business, and look at how long it took Microsoft to come up with an update to VS.NET 2003!! That leaves us more than time enough to learn all the new stuff. Oh, how
I wish that Avalon was here already...
edit: after reading your message once again I honestly believe that you should think about retiring! Man you sound depressed, I pity the people for whom you have to write software!!! How on earth can you deliver good work if you're not able to stay up to date? You
would sell people old technology! Please, if you're not able to keep up to speed, let other people take over and give a new turn to your life instead of blaming Microsoft!!!
Way too harsh!
If I had a dollar for every time I've been involved in trying to rescue a mess of a project that's arisen as a result of enthusiastic young things who are only interested in learning the latest cool stuff at the most rudimentary level, keen to rush onto the
next before they've had any kind of depth in what they're doing, I'd be a millionaire by now.
Yes, things need to move forward but too often it seems that it's just change for change's sake, and the MTV generation seem to have the attention span of a newt! Too much is being rushed out without being properly thought through - hence the constant re-engineering,
when it should have been done properly in the first place if a bit of thought had gone into the process instead of this obsession with being "cool". Net result stronger developers have to pick up the pieces in delayed projects or complete failures (over 65%
of software projects are regarded as a failure the last I heard).
I've been reading that b and i are deprecataed and should be avoided for some time now and certainly worked in several shops where it's been explained to me that b and i are semantically meaningless where strong and em aren't and are better supported by JAWS
(I haven't got JAWS installed so have no idea of the truth of this) - hence my assumption they should not be used.
I've actually got radio buttons working inside grid controls although the code is pretty hacky involving the usual inheritance and some rather shady work with client-side ids.
As a final note I guess my big request here is I hope the documentation for the controls and/or the intellisense documents these new features. Ideally we need a one-to-one mapping between server control attributes and the HTML they generate, which has always
been seriously lacking up to now. When trying to make the datagrid more DDA-compliant I found four pages of advice on google groups (yeah, yeah I know!) telling me that the datagrid didn't support th generation from header elements with reply after reply saying
"use the repeater instead - it's the only way" before I hit the ASP.NET 1.1 rollout fix solution on page 5 of the results list, with its mention of the new attribute (I don't have the fix details to hand but I think it was "UseAccessibility=true"). The hotfix
note claiming this made the datagrid compliant mentioned nothing about "summary" (only "caption") so I ended up with my own control inheriting from datagrid that overwrites the "render" method, and traps write element and write attribute events so that when
a table element is being output it sets a flag and then that flag causes the attribute render event to do an AddAttribute for the missing "summary" tag. I guess I'll be reworking that hack on Monday
We've used a similar technique to remove invalid attributes (that appear to not even be used anyway) on the validation summary control so if there's any attributes there that might help remove those hacks we'd be interested to hear of them, or where the best
place for finding out where some of this stuff is documented.
Anyway, thanks again. The answers given here and in the other thread have helped resolve issues that have been troubling developes at several shops I've worked at for some time. I'm looking forward to getting the beta 2 to do some hand on myself later this
On the subject of Accessibility it was noticeable on the free training for C# ASP.NET 2.0 CD that Ken Getz and his company put out that server side controls were generating deprecated 'b' tags instead of the semantic 'strong' tag encouraged for use in
Is this fixed in beta 2?
If not, will it be fixed in the release?
We took a lot of pain with accessibility on datagrid. Even the ASP.NET 1.1 Rollout fix that claimed compliance with accessibility legislation only fixed the problem with header tags being generated as tds and added a caption property - the required table 'summary'
property was not included and trying to get label for working with radio buttons in a data grid - well let's not go there. Is this sort of issue going to be fixed in Whidby?