<form> syntax

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coward 9
  • Start date Start date
C

Coward 9

HI,

I saw in an example hello.aspx, there is a <form tag> being used like

<form runat="server>

I search all html tag references and could NOT find "runat" attributes
for <form> tag.

which reference should I use in order to find that?

Thanks,
 
runat= is not an HTML attribute. It is a special attribute used in HTML
that will be parsed by the ASP.NET prior to rendering to the client. Since
ASP.NET is server-side code, it is parsed on the server before sending
anything to the client. The client does not receive the runat= syntax.
 
The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*. If it's an ASP.NET
control, it's not (by definition) an HTML control as well.
 
re:
The ASP.NET Web Form Control, not *HTML Form Control*.
Click to expand...

May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?

!> The *asp.net html form control*

From the page link I sent :

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/620b4fzf(VS.71).aspx

You can indicate that an HTML element should be parsed and
treated as a server control by adding a runat="server" attribute.

Furthermore, the HtmlForm Control creates a server-side control that maps to the
<form> HTML element and allows you to create a container for elements in a web page.

In essence, the "ASP.NET Web Form Control" is an HTML Form Control which,
by adding the runat="server" property, is processed server-side.

HTH...



Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
 
I am well aware of how the rendering of server controls results in HTML, but
that has nothing to do with what to call the control in question. Your
terminology is what I'm questioning, not the rendering process.

May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

If "runat=server" is present, then the control can be programmed server-side
as an "ASP .NET Web Form Control", while "HTML controls" do not have this
capability. This is why VS .NET has two sections for standard page
controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

If you take a normal HTML control and add "runat=server", you now have a
third category of control, the "HTML Server Control", not the "ASP .NET HTML
Server Control".

I'll refer to your presented article, which is entitled "HTML Server
Controls", not "ASP .NET HTML Controls". In fact, a search of that article
of the words "ASP .NET HTML" or "ASP.NET HTML" shows that no where in the
artcile are "ASP .NET" and "HTML" used next to each other.


HTH
 
re:
Your terminology is what I'm questioning, not the rendering process.
Click to expand...

You can nitpick my terminology all you want to.

But you should not nitpick while posting mistaken information.
It makes you look like, well, a nitpicker, and opens the door for *you* to be nitpicked.

re:
!> This is why VS .NET has two sections for standard page
!> controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

Let me nitpick you, now, for a bit, as an example.

It is not "VS.NET" which has those two sections, it's *ASP.NET* which has them.

....and those aren't the correct names for the two sections.

The correct name for them is "HTML Server Controls" and "Web Server Controls",
respectively, and the last one is not called "Web Form Controls, as you allege.

The "Web Form" is a *container* for Web Server Controls, not a web form control itself.

So, to make this abundantly clear, there's only *two* types of web forms, not three.
One is the HTML web form; the other is the ASP.NET web form.

The difference is that one has runat="server"
and the other one doesn't, but you knew that, right ?

Look, we can spend a few back-and-forths nitpicking each other,
or we can try not to nitpick senselessly.

You knew what I meant when I wrote :

!> The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form reference.

....just as I knew what you meant about the "two sections" and "VS.NET",
even if what you stated was not precisely correct on two counts.

Professional programmers, unless there's clearly mistaken references,
should avoid nitpicking for nitpicking's sake.





Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
 
Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first. If
you are not, then I think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use it,
but not you).
 
Actually, I said :

!> May I repeat my statement, so your mistaken impression is corrected ?

Compare that to your statement that :
!>> May I repeat my statement so your incorrect statement can be corrected?

....with which you were, clearly, attempting to subvert what I said.

I said that you had a "mistaken impression"; you said I had posted an "incorrect statement".

There's an enormous difference between those two statements,
particularly since it was *you* who posted the incorrect statements which I explained.

But, never mind...

Mark was spot-on with his assessment.

If you keep up the nitpicking, I may take further action...like blocking your posts.
That will take care of your persisting argumentative stance, AFAIC.

If you continue to bug others here, who come for either help or to assist others,
it's going to be their problem...due to your problem, but at least I won't be involved.





Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
 
Oh, you must be referring to Juan, since he is the one who used it first.
If you are not, then I think you are being a bit hipocritical (he can use
it, but not you).
Click to expand...

I've had enough of you now - bye.

<plonk>
 
Juan, you are not reading my replies correctly, your are mistaken in your
replies to me and you are being uneccesarially rude. If you take the time
to read carefully what I'm saying inline, and really try to put your ego
aside, you will see that I have provided proof (not my opinions) about why
you are mistaken about telling me I'm wrong AND the terminology you are
using.

See inline....


Juan T. Llibre said:
re:

You can nitpick my terminology all you want to.

But you should not nitpick while posting mistaken information.
It makes you look like, well, a nitpicker, and opens the door for *you* to
be nitpicked.

re:
!> This is why VS .NET has two sections for standard page
!> controls, one is "HTML" and one is "Web Form".

Let me nitpick you, now, for a bit, as an example.

It is not "VS.NET" which has those two sections, it's *ASP.NET* which has
them.

...and those aren't the correct names for the two sections.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true for VS .NET 2002 & 2003 (the category names are, in
fact, "Web Forms" and "HTML" as I stated). I am looking at it right now!
It is true that in the 2005 Toolbox, the categories are "Standard" & "HTML",
but my initial point is still true that there is no category called "ASP.NET
HTML".
The correct name for them is "HTML Server Controls" and "Web Server
Controls",
respectively, and the last one is not called "Web Form Controls, as you
allege.
Click to expand...

Again, open the software (with your eyes open) and look. You are wrong.
The HTML category is for standard HTML markup, not server anyting. You are
confusing the "HTML Server Controls" with the HTML controls and that is not
an incosequential error to make, it is simply NOT nit-picking.
The "Web Form" is a *container* for Web Server Controls, not a web form
control itself.
Click to expand...

I know that, (which is why you can't create a new one from the Toolbox and
why your initial term "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect). The term
"ASP.NET HTML Form Control" is incorrect becaus no such thing exists.
So, to make this abundantly clear, there's only *two* types of web forms,
not three.
One is the HTML web form; the other is the ASP.NET web form.
Click to expand...

NOT TRUE!!! It's abundantly clear that you don't know what you are talking
about! Read on for my facts proving this, not my wild assumptions.

There is only ONE type of form available in an ASP.NET page. There are 3
(THREE) categories of controls, but where forms are concerned, only ONE (not
two) is applicable and it is NOT an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (my whole
point here!).

Only controls that have "<asp:" in their name are "Web Forms" ('02, '03) or
"Standard" ('05) controls and these are written (at design-time) as
"<asp:controlType>". The form tag, which we are discussing does not start
with "<asp:" and is NOT of the ASP.NET type.

<FORM> <-- HTML Form Tag (markup - not
ASP.NET anything and not allowed in an .aspx file)
The difference is that one has runat="server"
and the other one doesn't, but you knew that, right ?
Click to expand...

Yes, but neither of these syntaxes are written as "<asp:controlType". It
appears that *you* apparently don't know that because you are stilll
ignoring this 3rd, and most common category of controls. And, it is still
incorrect to call it an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control" (as ASP.NET and HTML are
contradictory).
Look, we can spend a few back-and-forths nitpicking each other,
or we can try not to nitpick senselessly.
Click to expand...

So, you see no difference between the following or you believe the
difference is trivial and nit-picking, right?

1. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" />
2. <INPUT TYPE="TEXT" NAME="txtUser" runat="server" />
3. <asp:TextBox id="txtUser" runat="server" />

Please note that these constitue the 3 (yes, three, not two) categories of
controls available to use and where forms are concerned, only the #2 version
is applicable in an ASP.NET page (try using #1 with a form tag and you'll
get a runtime exception).

- Item #1 is a standard piece of "HTML markup" or even "HTML Form Control"
if you like, but it has extremly limited server-side representation (and not
accesible by the developer via server-side code).
- Item #2 is an "HTML Server Control" and is represented in ASP.NET by an
"HTMLGenericControl" class. It has limited server-side functionality.
- Item #3 is an "ASP.NET Web Forms Control" or just "Server Control" and is
represented (in a very rich and specific way) via a "Textbox" class. This
category is the most rich form of control, as it has the widest range of
server-side coding possibilites (events, properties & methods).

Again, I will conceed that where forms are concerned, only #2 is available
in ASP.NET, but #2 is NOT referred to as an "ASP.NET HTML Form Control",
that's just wrong. I just demonstrated that very clearly. Why can't you
acknowledge there are non-trivial differences between them? What you have
been incorrectly referring to is actually an "HTML Server Control", not an
"ASP.NET HTML Form Control".
You knew what I meant when I wrote :

!> The *asp.net html form control* reference, not the html form reference.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't because you've listed the 2 out of 3 categories that are not
applicable. Your fist term is non-existant and your second descriptive term
is just incorrect.
Also, based on the original post, it's clear that "Coward 9" wouldn't have
figured that out. This is why I added a polite correction of your
terminology. I wan't rude and, as I've now shown, the differences are not
trivial.

But thanks for finally conceding that your terminology was bogus.
...just as I knew what you meant about the "two sections" and "VS.NET",
even if what you stated was not precisely correct on two counts.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the difference between our posts, you are flat out wrong about
those items....

I'm correct when I say that there are TWO sections of the VS .NET toolbox
(in all VS.NET versions) that distinguish standard HTML markup from "<asp:"
("Web Forms" or "Standard") controls. Are you really going to keep pushing
that incorrect statement?

But, now you admit that you used the incorrect terminology, which is all I
was trying to point out.
Professional programmers, unless there's clearly mistaken references,
should avoid nitpicking for nitpicking's sake.
Click to expand...

Yes, I absolutley agree (and not responding to your implied insult). But,
as I wrote earlier, if you really believe there are no important differences
in the THREE categories of controls, you must just be upset about someone
politely correcting you, because I know you are smart enough to understand
that there are HUGE implications to your application by using the wrong
category of control.
 
Now you are just being troll-like Juan. PLEASE DO "TAKE FURTHER ACTION" and
BLOCK ME so I won't have to deal with your insanity.

It's clear you are irrational on all fronts. You can call me wrong, but I
can't disagree and call you wrong in response? You said it first, so I must
be wrong because I said it second? You opinion carries more weight that
mine? PLEASE!

Your rebuttles to my posts, have in no way clarified how you are correct.
If you read my other latest post, you'll see I have incontravertly proven
your statements to be flat out wrong.

As far as your "lecture" on how to provide help to others, I think the best
thing to do is provide *facts*, be prepared to defend your position and be
willing to concede when you have been *proven* wrong (which you have not
done [read my other latest post] and I have). You have provided nothing but
incorrect statments, been rude (yeah that's a great quality to bring to the
table in a newsgroup) and no facts to *prove* your point.

As a matter of *fact*, you have already admitted you used the wrong
terminology, but yet, you continue to persist that the terminology you used
was correct? Do you not see the contradiction here?
 
Yes, because you are unwilling to look at facts that clearly prove you
wrong. We can't have any of those pesky *fact* triumphing over insults and
mis-statements now can we?

But, as I said before, thanks for filtering me. Now there is one less idiot
to waste keystrokes on.

I hope, despite Juan's troll-like responses, you are clear on the .NET
control categories Coward 9.

-Scott
 
re:
!> I've had enough of you now - bye.
!> <plonk>

There must be something in the air.

In the last 10 years of trying to help people in these newsgroups,
I'd only plonked two people, separated by a few years.

This *week* I've plonked two.

I bet Scott couldn't resist the temptation to post a zinger or two,
*after* knowing that he's been plonked, all the time alleging that
it's not him, but us, who are behaving like trolls.

The more life changes, the more it's the same thing.




Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
 
LOL - No zingers needed, you've proven you level of knowledge in the area
and your willingness to deal in fact, rather than fiction.

Like when you said there is nothing in the Toolbox called "Web Forms" or
"HTML", when in fact, there is.

Or, when you say there are only two categories of ASP.NET controls (instead
of the 3 that I showed you).

Or, when you admit you used the wrong terminology, so you changed your whole
point from you using a term that doesn't exist and conveys an incorrect
meaning to me "nit-picking".

Or, when I backed up my statements with provable and checkable facts and you
provided none of either.

Or when you started throwing insults when no one provoked you to do so.

Yes, I really need a "zinger" to show how wrong you've been. Actually, I
think everyone who doesn't like a discussion which includes facts to dispute
fiction should also filter me. Then I can converse with the other crazy
folks like myself.
 
In the last 10 years of trying to help people in these newsgroups,
I'd only plonked two people, separated by a few years.

This *week* I've plonked two.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling a third came dangerously close too... :-)

Just be thankful you're not an MVP in one of the Vista forums at the
moment... ;-) All is most certainly not pax et harmonium over there...
I bet Scott couldn't resist the temptation to post a zinger or two,
*after* knowing that he's been plonked, all the time alleging that
it's not him, but us, who are behaving like trolls.
Click to expand...

Who cares - neither of us will see it... :-)
 
Back
Top