Regarding DOTNET

[newcoder]

Hai Guys,
I am a new buddie to DOT net. Can anyone help in this issue. I am aware of the presence of a property in ASP.NET termed "clienttarget" taking two possible values as 'downlevel' and 'uplevel'. While i could get the difference between these two my problem is when should i go for selecting downlevel. Why is this concept intoduced is there anything tricky in it.

[castali]

uplevel Renders with Internet Explorer 4 capabilities.
downlevel Renders with HTML 3.2 capabilities; that is, no CSS support

Uplevel and Downlevel Browser Capabilities
Browsers and client devices are split into two distinctive groups: uplevel and downlevel. These groups define the type of native support a browser or client device offers, and they generally determine the presentation and behavior of a loading page from a Web server.

Browsers and client devices that are considered uplevel usually support at least the following:

ECMAScript (JScript, JavaScript) version 1.2.
HTML version 4.0
The Microsoft Document Object Model (MSDOM)
Cascading style sheets (CSS)
Downlevel browsers and client devices support the following only:

HTML version 3.2
The following server control properties render differently in uplevel and downlevel browsers:

AccessKey will not work on any downlevel browsers for any controls. It is not HTML 4.0 and will only work in Microsoft Internet Explorer 4 or later.
BackColor will work on downlevel browsers only for some controls: Table, Panel, DataGrid, Calendar, and ValidationSummary. It will also work for CheckBoxList, RadioButtonList and DataList if the layout is in a Table. In general, only controls that render as a <table> tag can output a background color in HTML 3.2, whereas almost anything can in HTML 4.0. For controls that render in <span> tags, including Labels, validator controls, and list controls in flow mode, BackColor will work in Internet Explorer 5 or later but not in Internet Explorer 4.
BorderColor will work on downlevel browsers only for the same table-based controls as BackColor. However, it is output as the "bordercolor" attribute, which is not part of the HTML 3.2 standard. Some browsers support this attribute, including Internet Explorer 3.0 and later, but not all browsers do.
BorderStyle will not work on any downlevel browsers. There is no equivalent to it in HTML 3.2.
BorderWidth will only work in controls that render as a <table> (Table, Panel, DataGrid, and Calendar) or as an <img> (Image, AdRotator). BorderWidth will only work on downlevel browsers if specified in Pixels, otherwise it will always be rendered as either border=1 or border=0. Also, BorderWidth only works with table-based controls if GridLines is set to a value other than None. This is because there is no way to specify a border without gridlines in HTML 3.2. For controls that render as <span> tags, including Labels, validator controls, and list controls in flow mode, BorderWidth will work in Internet Explorer 5 or later, but not in Internet Explorer 4.
CssClass will always be rendered as the class attribute, regardless of the browser. Most uplevel browsers recognize the class attribute.
Enabled is used to specify whether a control raises its events and functions. In Internet Explorer 4 or later, setting Enabled to false has the effect of making the control appear unavailable and locked from input, using the "disabled=true" attribute.
Font-Bold, Font-Italic, Font-Strikeout and similar properties are rendered as style attributes for uplevel browsers (for example, Font-Weight for bold and Font-Style for italic) and as independent elements (for example, <b> and <i>) for downlevel browsers.
Font-Size will work on downlevel browsers for all controls only if named font sizes are used (Small, Smaller and so on). In uplevel browsers, this property is rendered as a style attribute; in downlevel browsers, it is rendered as a <font> element.
Font-Overline will not work on any downlevel browser.
ForeColor will work on downlevel browsers for all controls except Image, AdRotator, HyperLink and LinkButton. For downlevel browsers, ForeColor will be rendered in <font> tags.
Height will not work on downlevel browsers for Labels, validator controls, HyperLinks, or LinkButtons. Height will also not work for CheckBoxLists, RadioButtonLists, and DataLists if the layout is set to Flow. Only Pixel and percentage measurements will work. For table-based controls, this is non-standard HTML and will only work in later uplevel browsers.
TabIndex will not work on any downlevel browsers for any controls. It is not HTML 4.0 and will only work in Internet Explorer 4 or later.
ToolTip will not work on any downlevel browsers.
Width will not work on downlevel browsers for Labels, validator controls, HyperLinks, or LinkButtons. Width will also not work for CheckBoxLists, RadioButtonLists and DataLists if the layout is set to Flow. Only Pixel and percentage measurements will work.
Table, Calendar, DataList, DataGrid, RadioButtonList and CheckBoxList
GridLines can only be on or off in HTML 3.2. Any value setting is rendered for both horizontal and vertical grid lines. As mentioned above, if GridLines is set to None, you cannot have a border.
Calendar
ForeColor will be carried through to links displayed by the Calendar control only in uplevel browsers of version 4.0 or later, because it uses a style attribute to assign the link color.


direct from the SDK


any way the choice is very limitated .. I should use a upupupupupuplevel when the uplevel is allready very low

[whammy]

I haven't messed with this yet - but from what I've seen of .NET's "uplevel", it leaves a lot to be desired (i.e. the default code generated by .NET is not standards compliant).

However, I'm also not the best person to answer this question, as everything I've done in .NET to this point has been C# Windows Forms or console applications. And for those, .NET really blows me away.

I'm sure now that our company is moving more and more towards .NET web development, I'll be able to answer more of these questions... because there's no way I'll let it make my client-side code that ugly if I can help it.

[castali]

xhtml render will be better with net 2.0

for the moment it sucks

[BigDaddy]

I just find it kind of ironic that M-soft wouldn't have created .NET to be compliant.

[whammy]

Me too, bro.



They apparently tried, but obviously none of their programmers knows how to make an XHTML compliant website... sounds familiar, eh?

[castali]

but it's the same if you use Dreamwearver mx ... you just get a half XHTML transitional ...