Jeff Lynch [MVP] - All Comments

re: Commerce Server 2007: Development Tip #4 - Returning Site Terms

jlynch — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:38:24 GMT

It is indeed!

Jeff

re: ASP.NET "Head" Rendering Issues!

jlynch — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:06:58 GMT

@Ken: I may not be able to get rid of the VIEWSTATE (since it actually contains the server controls "control state") but I have found a few ways to minimize it and move it to the bottom of the page.

@ignu: Hmmmm... I do obsess over my IL code. How did you guess? (LOL)

re: ASP.NET "Head" Rendering Issues!

Ken Egozi — Sat, 03 May 2008 06:05:25 GMT

@ignu:

Well, HTML markup is much different than IL.

Why?

ask any 13 yr. old web hacker.

A web developer needs close interaction with the markup, when doing JS/CSS stuff, when poking around with FBug, etc. Poking around IL is not as common to say the least.

@Jeff:

Now all you have left is to get rid of that ridiculous VIEWSTATE field ...

re: ASP.NET "Head" Rendering Issues!

ignu — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:59:36 GMT

no, i don't. this would be like obsessing over how pretty the IL of my assembly looked. it's generated code, and doing any work to improve its output is too much work.

control adapters can be really useful when the generated code is causing problems or bloat, but prettying up auto-generated formatting isn't useful, imho.

re: More Thoughts on HTML5, CSS3 & WebKit Advances!

jlynch — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:43:48 GMT

JDN,

I agree but find it interesting that the "open source" WebKit.org team can come up with these new features so much faster than the other browser manufacturers. It's also interesting that Mozilla (Firefox) also seems to be playing catch-up instead of leading as they have in the past. I only hope the folks in the IE team have the time and money to develop their own HTML5 and CSS3 support sometime in the near future. I'd rather see them spend time on this than on their new "WebSlices" technology.

But that's just my opinion.

Jeff

re: Logical Message Splitting in BizTalk Server 2004

jlynch — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:05:54 GMT

Nick,

I used to remember how to do this but it escapes me right now. Google "BizTalk File Naming" and see if you can find any posts by Stephen Thomas or any of the other BizTalk MVPs. I seem to remember a few posts discussing this several years ago.

Jeff

re: More Thoughts on HTML5, CSS3 & WebKit Advances!

jdn — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:24:32 GMT

But even though they are submitting these things to standars bodies, it will take years for those standards to be official and have all major browsers support them (if past history repeats itself). In the meantime, we now have proliferating differences.

If Microsoft had done this with IE8, people would have gone ballistic (look at all the hubub over 'display as IE 7' mode).

re: Logical Message Splitting in BizTalk Server 2004

Nick — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:44:41 GMT

Please disregard my previous question. I was able to get to work with a little xpath (and some pain).

SingleRoute(FILE.ReceivedFileName) = (System.String)xpath(SingleRoute,"string(//Tractor/text())") + ".xml";

Thanks - Nick

re: More Thoughts on HTML5, CSS3 & WebKit Advances!

Adron — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:50:15 GMT

The kool-aid ought ot be some good kool-aid. We just need everyone to get a glass or two. :)

re: Logical Message Splitting in BizTalk Server 2004

Don — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:59:38 GMT

Thank you so much for sharing this, it was a HUGE help!! I am just getting started with Biztalk and simple, concise examples like this are perfect.

re: Logical Message Splitting in BizTalk Server 2004

Nick — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:21:53 GMT

This split works great Jeff. I'm now trying to apply a file name to the output. The file name I want to use is located in a field called 'Tractor'. This field is promoted (in the single schema) and available to tab select when typing the script below in the message.

SingleRoute(FILE.ReceivedFileName) = SingleRoute.Order.Tractor + ".xml";

However, I'm not seeing any output when attempting to use the %SourceFileName% macro on the send port.

Any quick suggestions?

Thanks - Nick

re: Why Safari May Become the Browser of Choice!

jlynch — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:16:52 GMT

Kyle,

As far as I can tell, most if not all of these new "features" are already included in the draft HTML5 and CSS3 specifications and I believe the WebKit folks have sent in proposals for those new features not already in the draft standards.

One other thing to note is that the W3C already includes provisions for browser specific tags in the CSS 2.1 specification and both WebKit and Mozilla use these provisions to add browser specific (but hopefully standard someday) features such as "-webkit-border-radius" and "-moz-border-radius" which can be used to create rounded corners on an object without using images and/or Javascript.

Jeff

re: Why Safari May Become the Browser of Choice!

jlynch — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:09:45 GMT

Dathan,

Interesting comments. I've been using Internet Explorer since the very early days and I'm not aware of any implementation of CSS based transforms, animation, gradients or SVG. As far as I can tell, none of these new WebKit features are "browser specific". In fact, most of them are already present in the draft HTML5 and CSS3 specifications and for the features that are not, WebKit has already propsed these to the W3C for inclusion in the draft HTML5 and CSS3 standards.

Jeff

re: Why Safari May Become the Browser of Choice!

Kyle — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:47:30 GMT

The feature list does sound pretty interesting. If it were accepted as a web standard and implemented across all the major browsers that would be pretty exciting.

re: Why Safari May Become the Browser of Choice!

Kyle — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:44:42 GMT

This is the exact opposite of Web Standards.

Safari, a web browser with 2% market share going and creating something only they support is a horrible idea. Any developer who implements those new features will be willfully prolonging the pain of non-compliant web sites, and browser incompatibilities.

Until they are presented, accepted and implemented as a web standard, I think the IPhone will be the only place you'll ever see them.