2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2015 2016 aspnet azure csharp debugging exceptions firefox javascriptajax linux llblgen powershell projects python security services silverlight training videos wcf wpf xag xhtmlcss

Dojo 1.0: Client-Side Web Development Framework

Recently I started a deeper study of the Dojo JavaScript Toolkit 1.0.  When I first got into Dojo, my reaction was something like "my goodness this is complicated", but then I woke up.  In reality, Dojo is not simply a JavaScript framework like prototype or an animation framework like script.aculo.us, but, rather, it's an entire client-side web development framework.  You can think of it as being a client-side version of the ASP.NET.  Because of this, I'm not going to compare it to prototype or script.aculo.us, products, which have completely different applications than Dojo.

Here is a simple break down of an example based on the hello world example found on the Dojo web site.  First let's add the dojo.js file:

<script src="dojoroot/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="parseOnLoad: true" type="text/javascript"></script>

What in the WORLD is the djConfig attribute?  Well it's not in any XHTML DTD that's for sure.  This is something to tell Dojo to, obviously, parse the file on load.  Duh.  That's not really the fun part though.  Check this out, you actually use a PHP style "require" statement to load specific portions of Dojo:

<script type="text/javascript">

By doing this, now we can add the following control into our page structure:

<button dojoType="dijit.form.Button" id="hola">
  Hola Mundo!
  <script type="dojo/method" event="onClick">alert('Hola');</script>

This creates a simple button which alerts 'Hola' when clicked.  As you can see, it gives you a very nice declarative programming model.  I personally think this is incredible because 1) I believe that we should focus on web development from a client-side perspective and therefore create controls on the client, 2) I love declarative programming, 3) I don't want to build this thing myself.  With Dojo I get a declarative client-side programming model without having to architect the internals.  This is really awesome, since I'm a strong advocate of client-side perspective programming (a.k.a. web 2.0).

One interesting aspect of Dojo is that it loads only the files that you need for that specific page.  This is a rather nice compromise between the Prototype and mooTools methods.  Prototype loads the entire thing into memory and mooTools allows you to download each section you want.  Dojo, however, installs on the server as a set of files that are available for download and you retrieve them as you need them.  To add to this, you don't add them via the <script /> element, you add the dojo.js file that way, but you load the others by calling dojo.require( ).  What's nice about this is that you load modules, not files.  It also gives it a more native programming feel, but it also makes sure you don't load the same file twice.  Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

<script type="text/javascript">

Here you can see that I'm loading up four different modules.  What's interesting about this is that it's kind of similar to how we import .NET namespaces.  However, it's even more like how we load .NET assemblies.  Think of each one of these as being an assembly we need to reference.  In .NET, you add a reference, let fusion and it's buddies find and load the assemblies, and simply use the controls as if they were local; you don't care about "files".  This is very similar to the model presented in Dojo.  It's like you are adding a Dojo "assembly" reference, letting it load it for you, and you access it as it were local.  This is all in direct contrast to the model that PHP as well as most JavaScript/AJAX framework use.  In PHP and in these frameworks, you typically load "files" directly.  One of the hardest things for a PHP developer to do is make the mental transition from file files to "magically loading" .NET assemblies.  In .NET assembly names don't need to match their DLL names, in fact as assembly can span more than a single DLL file!  In the same way, Dojo's module names don't have a one-to-one module-to-file mapping and loads whatever physical files you need based on the logical name you request.  Very nice! The analogy isn't perfect and like I've already mentioned it's a bit like the .NET namespace import model as well.

Dojo contains a number of very nice controls as part of it's Dojo Widjet Library, also known as Dijit.  Many of these are controls that most of us have wanted for years, but just have never had the time to mess with.  For example, Dojo including a slider control, a dynamically expanding textarea, and a filtering select box.  There's a whole host of others, but these are the ones that I personally have wanted to see in a professional framework for a long time.  There's also a progress bar control and a dialog control for those of you who are into business apps.  Dojo actually provides a tooltip dialog control as well.  This control, as the name suggests, shows a dialog as a tooltip.  The only time ever seen a control like this used was on the Facebook login screen, specifically when you check "Remember me".  Another interesting thing related to controls is that Dojo gives you the ability to transform controls into a more beautified form.  It's able to do this because it ships with a few CSS files that give Dojo its initial look and feel.  Furthermore it also includes a number of themes.  You can see this in a few of the more basic demonstrations in the Dojo documentation.

Dojo also includes many layout controls including a split container, accordion, tab control and what is called a StackContainer.  This container shows a pane on the screen and gives you a next and previous button so you can go back and forth between panes.  There's also a rich text editor control.  That should get some people's attention right there.  As cool as that is though, I don't think anything beats the grid control.  The grid is like a combination of ASP.NET's GridView and WPF's Grid.  It allows databinding like GridView, but it also allows complex row and column adjustment like the Grid.  Technically it's not part of the core of Dojo, but it's incredibly amazing.  You can see a great example of a Grid with it's code, see this example.  The code for this Grid is so simple, that you probably won't even believe your eyes.  Even still, the author of that example writes about the example here.  The Grid really is one of the most powerful controls I've ever seen in a client or server technology.  Again, can you see how Dojo is like a client-side ASP.NET?

It should go without saying at this point, but Dojo also includes various validation controls.  You can actually put an <input /> element on the screen and set dojoType="dijit.form.DateTextBox" and you get an entirely new animal that loads a calendar control when you click in the textbox.  If you prefer to type the date out by hand, the field will be validated automatically.  You can also validate against money.  Look at this example from the Dojo documentation:

<input type="text" name="income1" value="54775.53"
  invalidMessage="Invalid amount.  Include dollar sign, commas, and cents." />

That's seriously detailed.  The data is validated as the user types.  If you want to validate numbers that don't represent money, you can use the NumberTextBox Dojo control (also set via the dojoType attribute).  Or, if you want more powerful validation, use a ValidationTextbox and set the regExp attribute and validate directly against a regular expression.  Your regular expression doesn't have to be inline in the regExp attribute either.  Take a look at this example from the Dojo documentation:

<input type="text" name="zip" value="00000"
  invalidMessage="Zip codes after 5, county name before then." />

Here you can see that the JavaScript function (checkForFiveDigitZipCode) is called for validation.  To see these examples run and to see more information on validation in Dojo see the validation page in their documentation.

At this point I think I should mention something.  As many of you know, I'm a strong standards advocate and an extremely outspoken opponent of the mere existence of Internet Explorer.  Having said that, laws exist for a purpose and, frankly, only within the bounds of that purpose.  The purpose of standards are to give us a common ground and to help us have cleaner, more professional work (my "having higher web standards" thing I'm always talking about).  In terms of web browsers, each browser needs to continually keep up with the standards.  Why?  Obviously so web developers can ship out content and not want to change their career every single time they realize that browser X, Y, or Z doesn't support a specific feature.  With this in mind, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Dojo using custom attributes on types.  Dojo is requiring new functionality, but it's also providing that functionality at the same time.  That which is requires, it provides.  This is completely legal within the bounds of the purpose of standards.  So, there is no reason for anyone to start crying about Dojo adding custom attributes.  There was a time when I was a standards extremist (~2003), going so far as to even use a custom DTD on my pages where I would use custom attributes (set via JavaScript), but I've since realized that standard extremism is practically a cult and have ran from it.  Also, and you may want to sit down for this one, I think that Dojo holds nicely to semantic web principles.  Notice we aren't creating an input and procedurally making it do validation, rather, we are creating something that is a validation box.  It's not as semantic as a <validationtextbox /> would be, if it were to exist, but as with most things, semanticism (huh?) is a continuum.  If it weren't a continuum, <input type="hidden" /> shouldn't exist or ever be used (I would argue that this does in fact have some semantic value!)  Because of this, I don't see Dojo involving itself with the evils of pragmatism.  However, Dojo would be an evil pragmatic framework with little semantic structure, if it instead tried to setup some type of configuration system by setting class names.  Can you even imagine the chaos?  I've done this before as a standards extremist and it's really nasty.

Another thing that's insanely cool about Dojo is the event system.  As we ASP.NET developers know, events aren't simply things you use on visual controls.  No, you use events to notify entities of (...drum roll please...) events.  So, you could have multiple entities monitoring a centralized entity, perhaps a service and when that centralized entity sends out an update, all the other entities immediately receive the update.  It's the observer pattern, but you may know it as the publish/subscribe model.  Normally when you think of JavaScript events you think of events in terms of visual control events just as you would with ASP.NET.  With Dojo, however your event model gets an upgrade with a publisher/subscriber model.  Here's an example for you to ponder:

<script type="text/javascript">
  function Client (name) {
    this._name = name;
    dojo.subscribe('update', this, update);
    function update(args) {
      console.debug(this._name + ': ' + args);
  var Server = {
    sendUpdates: function(message) {
      dojo.publish('update', [message]);
  var clientA = new Client('Client A');
  var clientB = new Client('Client B');
  Server.sendUpdates('event occured!');

One thing on which I would like to warn all my .NET colleagues is this: they use Java terminology.  They fire their events whereas we like our events and think they are doing a great job so we raise them.  Personally, I've never understood that terminology, especially in systems like the web that allow for event bubbling where events are RAISED to the top.  OK, enough rant.  Before moving on though, just think about what I keep mentioning : this is like a fully fledged client-side ASP.NET.  You must surely be noticing that by now.

Dojo, of course, also gives you a XMLHttpRequest abstraction layer so that you don't need to mess with all that browser detection nonsense.  The syntax is rather similar to prototype's very intuitive syntax.  This is fortunate, because not all frameworks have a nice abstraction layer.  I've given up on trying to figure out mooTool's abstraction layer a long time ago.  It's doable, but the complexity curve is very steep.  In Dojo, however, the complexity curve is relatively flat, like prototype's.  Here's an example based on a Dojo documentation example of a simple XHR call (if you like, you can set 'json' instead of 'text' in the handleAs).  This code isn't anything fancy, but that's kind of my point:

<script type="text/javascript">
  url: '/file/1.txt',
  handleAs: 'text',
  timeout: 3000,
  load: function(response, ioArgs) {
    return response;
  error: function(response, ioArgs) {
    console.error('Status code: ', ioArgs.xhr.status);
    return response;

As simple as this is though, you can do much more with Dojo's abstraction layer than what I've seen in any other framework.  For example, there's actually a dojo.io.iframe object to give you the ability to do iframe-based AJAX.  Dojo also includes the dojo.rpc object, which allows for incredibly poweful RPC calls.  Gone are the days of having to choose to either create your own end-to-end communication or to completely use a flawed product.  You now have a nice middle ground for your AJAX service access. In a sense it's kind of similar to .NET remoting, in how it's not SOAP, but it's not quite sockets either.  The dojo.rpc concept is amazing quite possibly my favorite Dojo feature.  You can expect me to write more about this feature in the future.  I'm been completely taken in by this incredible feature and can see an incredible number of applications for it.  If you want to see something else wildly awesome, check out the dojo.data data access layer.  The documentation needs to be developed a bit more, but it's wild.  Whereas dojo.rpc may be similar to .NET remoting, dojo.data is kind of like WCF binding.  You just connect to a built-in or custom data store and your can bind Dojo controls directly to it!  Bind directly to your Flicker.com datastore or write your own.  For a few good examples of using this feature, check out this blog entry.

There are also features which we would kind of expect from a client-side framework like drag-n-drop support, animation support (though barely documented-- here's a PDF of an example), and DOM node selection (see dojo.query).  It also gives you control over internationalization (and unicode encoding) and the power to handle the back button in AJAX applications (of course by using the # syntax).  There's also the ability to create object-oriented class with inheritance.  One downside to this feature is that Dojo went back to the days of C++ and impossibly complex object graphing by allowing multiple inheritance.  You may want to set a corporate guideline to stop people from doing this, lest your object graphs become completely unreadable.  In any case, you also have an abstraction for arrays (to help emulate JavaScript 1.6), cookies, strings and dates.  You are also provided a mechanism for converting the data of an entire form into JSON data.

As if that weren't enough, Dojo also provides a unit testing framework called D.O.H.  You can do anything from simple asserts to full test cases, including grouping test cases.  In addition to the unit testing, Dojo allows you to send informational and debug messages to the Firebug console.  The documentation is packed with more testing samples than you will know what to do with.  Most of them are for testing the Dojo framework, but these tests use D.O.H. and give you a world of insight into the variety of things you can do with Dojo.

As far as documentation, there is more documentation for Dojo than I have seen in all the other JavaScript/AJAX frameworks combined.  The online "Book of Dojo" is incredibly long.  In fact, some may say that it's too long.  The Dojo people thought of this though and allow you to quickly get ROI from their "Dojo for the Attention-Impaired".  This page demonstrates the basic idea behind Dojo by showing a quick Hello World example.  I would recommend you do skim through this page, do the demo, then skim through the rest of the book, doing demos as you go.  One thing I should mention about the documentation is that while there is a lot of it, it's very hard to read at times.  I had to read the event system documentation numerous times before I was able to get anything from it.  This is definitely something the Dojo guys should look into.

Another thing they should look into is their use of double quotes in their JavaScript documentation.  This is something most ASP.NET AJAX books do and it really makes the code hard to read and hard to manage (do you really want to escape every single double quote in your HTML controls? ouch!)  It's makes about as much sense as using double quotes in your T-SQL code (which, yeah, would require a setting, but that's my point-- it's lame).  The Dojo documentation seems to go between various authors who either respect for the JavaScript guidelines (') or who don't even realize it exists (").  To make things worst, at times they use single quotes in their HTML!  There doesn't seem to be any consistency here.  I'm glad they didn't try to mix their code with any type of server-side work.  I don't even want to try to read double-quotes JavaScript in the midst of PHP, Java, or C# code.  That would e painful to read.  Other than these two concerns, the documentation was fairly exhaustive.  Some developers, however prefer to learn by seeing.  If you're one of those, you can check out the official Dojo demos.

In terms of deployment, you actually don't even need to install Dojo.  It's on the AOL Content Delivery Network (CDN), so you can quickly just include the Dojo entry file from their server and be done with it.  If you really want to download it to your system, you can hit up the Dojo web site and download it from there.  You could also head on over the the Dojo web site that parodies the script.aculo.us web site: dojo.moj.oe.  Also, remember that everything you need is accessible from the single Dojo entry file (often dojo.js) and that you use dojo.require( ) statements to bring in functionality at a module level, not a file level.  Therefore, the AOL CDN method should be perfect for most people.

Dojo is currently in version 1.0, however, this is an open source 1.0, not a Microsoft 1.0.  When Microsoft has an alpha, it's a preview.  When they have a beta 1, it's pretty nice.  When they have a beta 2, I'm usually using it in production.  When it's RTM as v1.0, everything breaks and I end up removing it.  Google products as well as Firefox and Dojo on the other hand are hardcore and stable when they hit 1.0.  Their idea of 1.0 is like Microsoft's idea of an SP2.  Shall I remind everyone that Gmail is STILL marked as beta after all these years??  Dojo is a stable system that have been in development and testing for an extremely long time.

Dojo really is a fascinating client-side web development framework which can bring great elegance as well as a great declarative programming model to your AJAX applications.  Furthermore, given it's rich set of controls, Dojo is absolutely perfect for web-based business applications.  Dojo is also probably one of the great technologies of all time that are destined for completely misunderstanding as a product comparable and/or equal with products that don't even come close to it.  There are people living today that still try to compare Internet Explorer with Firefox, VSS with Subversion, Gimp with Photoshop (oh yes, I went there!), the Zune (which is a media player) with the iPod Touch (which is an Internet device)and Gmail with Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail.  Compare them and you will see there is no comparison.  As I said at the beginning, this neither replaces prototype or script.aculo.us, which would be used in more minimal environments.  Dojo is a different framework to be used when a project has different requirements.  Besides, you should never choose one tool as your end all be all for everything.  That's a naive way of thinking, unless you actually think it wise to cut your bread with a butter knife or spread your butter with a bread knife.  Rarely are things in life one-side-fits-all.  Frameworks are free; use them, but use them wisely.  Hopefully many of you will seriously consider using Dojo in your current or future AJAX and ASP.NET projects.


Developers and Web Developers

(This is a sequel to my Coders and Professional Programmers article)

I'm fairly sure the year was 2001. It was before I did my transition from coder to professional, but it was long after I became a real web developer (1994).  This was the year that the web became severely corrupted by an influx of thousands of MFC/VB developers thinking they were web developers simply because they knew how to drag-n-drop a control onto a canvas and make something appear in a web browser. The influx was, of course, due to the release of ASP.NET. These people were not web developers and that same coder-mill continually throws out unprofessional after unprofessional today.  This was the year I got so upset with the pragmatic, unprofessional web developers running around taking my work that I retired for 3 years to go back to college.

So, what is a web developer?  Surely is at least one definition per person in the entire industry, but I must say that, at root, it's a person who understands and can proficiently interaction with web technologies.  What web technologies?  Today, these include, at a minimum, semantic XHTML, CSS, and Modern JavaScript.  In a sense, you could easily mark these as the pillars of web programming.  Without academic and hands-on knowledge of these technologies, there is no web devolvement (yes, both are required-- and despite what the pragmatists think, the former is critical). Furthermore, this technology list changes over time.  If I were to retire today, I have no right to come back in 5 years claiming to be a web developers.  To be a web developer at that time, I need to learn a new X, Y, and Z in including their guidelines and best practices.  You must keep up or be left behind.

Having said that, PHP, JSP, and ASP.NET developers often inappropriately call themselves web developers.  Not all PHP, JSP, or ASP.NET developers are like this, especially PHP developers! Respect, respect!  In any case, I can kind of see the confusion here, but even still, a quick realization of what these technologies are should have killed any thoughts of this a long time ago.  These people work with server-side technologies, not web technologies.  The same CGI model used 15 years ago is the same model today.  The only thing these people are doing is creating code that runs on a server and shipping the output.  Period.  That's not web development; this is the same work you would do if you were to build an Excel report.  It’s just work behind the scenes that may or may not touch a web browser.  Even then, just because it hit a web browser, doesn’t mean its web development.  There’s no client-side technologies involved at all. Without deeply interacting with client-side technologies, there is no web development.  In fact, the inanimate object known as a web server is more of a web development than server-side-only people.

Web development begins at the point when you begin to ponder the technologies and implementation from the perspective of the client-side.  I'm sure most people won't believe me when I say this, but I did web development for my 4 years of high school before I even knew that you could use server-side software to dynamically create pages.  Everything I did was in pure JavaScript and fancy frame manipulation.  This was web development.  I didn't need CGI or Perl.  PHP, JSP, and ASP.NET simply sends out a stream and it just so happens that a web browser may be the one making the request.  The output may be for a web browser, but that in absolutely no way makes it web development.  That's like going to a foreign country and using a translator device and saying because you have that device, you speak the language.  You in absolutely no way speak the language!  Worst, some people will defend, virtually to the death, the idea that they do speak the language simply because they know a few words to "fix" the translation!  We see this in server-side-only developers who, because they know a few HTML tags, think they know the technologies.

Most of the time, however, server-side-only developers really think they are web developers. So, this simple and obvious explanation won't do.  Therefore, we are forced to make a distinction between web 1.0 and web 2.0 developers.  We often think of web 2.0 as being quick, dynamic, and smooth client-side dynamics.  This is from a marketing perspective, but it's hardly a definition that satisfies the computer scientist.  The distinction I use is actually a bit more straightforward: web 2.0 development is development from the client-side perspective.  This definition actually reminds me of the definition of a series I learned in my Real Analysis class in college: a mapping from N to R.  How in the WORLD is that a series!? Isn't a series a set of entities or something?  Well, somehow it's a mapping from N to R (I've yet to hear another professor give this same definition, but the point is that "formal definitions" in mathematics rarely look like their application in reality).

When I talk about web 2.0 to a colleague or a client I'm talking about web-specific design and implementation from the perspective of the client. From this perspective calls are made to various services for interaction with outside data.  In other words, web 2.0 is a client-service model for the web.  In this sense, what is web 1.0?  Just the opposite: development from the server-side perspective.  This is ASP.NET development, for example.  When you are working with ASP.NET, you are working from the perspective of the server and you send data out.  In this model, you have a logically central system with entities accessing it. In reality, this isn’t web development—it’s development of something that may or may not do web development for you. Web 1.0 is a server-client model for the web (notice the word server, instead of service—as seen in the web 2.0 model)  If you are a deep Microsoft developer you recognize the web 2.0 paradigm: WPF/WCF allows you to easy create a client-service model bypassing the client-server model all together.  You create your client interfaces in WPF and access WCF servers as you need them.

In this perspective, what does this mean in terms of the actual technologies?  Well, almost all my web applications are done using the web 2.0 model.  That is, all my programming is done from the perspective of being inside the web browser.  I'll directly modify the DOM and access data via AJAX calls as required.  Some of my applications are pure-AJAX. That is, not single postback in the entire system (like meebo.com-- meebo is a prime example of a web 2.0; everything is from the perspective of the client with communication via AJAX services.)  In fact, my controls are very Google-ish.  Google is also deep into this model.  See their AdSense, AdWords, or Analytics controls; insert a declarative script and it does the rest from the perspective of the client.  As you can see here, you don't even need the XHR object for web 2.0!

What does ASP.NET AJAX bring?  In this model, ASP.NET AJAX is as web 1.0 technology that gives you the dynamics of web 2.0.  This was actual the entire point behind creating it.  Web 1.0 developers (who are often not web developers at all!) can use their existing server-side perspective and paradigms to implement dynamics on the remote system (in a web 1.0 model the client is the remote entity-- whereas in web 2.0 the services are remote).  ASP.NET AJAX very much allows for a web 2.0 model, but that's not how it's primarily marketed.  As a side note, I should mention that, this model for explaining web 1.0 and 2.0 is only a logical representation and therefore can not be right nor can it be wrong.  The fancy marketing representation kind of works too, but it's often too abstract to have real meaning.

Personally, I think the web 1.0 model of development is counterproductive and encourages sloppy priorities.  The user experience is the point of the system. Without that, the entire point of the web site is dead.  One of my problems with ASP.NET AJAX is how it's marketed.  The server-perspective model of development encourages development that seems backwards.  Furthermore, because of this, the aforementioned so-called "web developers" continue to spread their disease of pragmatism all over the world further aiding in the disintegration of quality.  As I've originally stated, most of these people don't understand even the basics of semantic XHTML, which is the single most fundamental aspect of web development, which can be seen in their use of div-soup or <br/> mania.  These people may be awesome server-side professionals putting my enterprise architecture skills to absolute shame and run circles around me in just about any algorithm or design pattern implementation, but they are only coders when it comes to the web.

After years and years of dealing with people like this, I've come to notice a few signs of web 1.0 coders:

  • If someone says "Firefox?  How's that better than IE?", it goes without saying that this person not only hasn't the first clue about web development, they don't even understand the tool which represents the core purpose of web development: the web browser.  People like this are almost always helpless.  You could try to explain the true power of CSS, the fact that SVG, HTML5, and Canvases are in every web browser except IE, or talk about how Firefox has the architecture of an operating system with its console, it's own registry (about:config), as well as the ability to install apps (extensions), but you're probably only going to get the same pragmatic blank stare of a coder. Fortunately, I haven’t heard say this in at least 3 years.
  • If someone says "I know CSS, here..." and shows you how they used font-size, color, and font-weight on a few elements contained in a table embedded in a table embedded in yet another table, then you have your work cut out for you, because you met a person who thinks HTML is the latest cool technology on the block and hasn't the first clue what CSS really means.  As I've stated in my article "CSS Architecture", CSS is not just a styling technology.  Furthermore, we web 2.0 developers realize that CSS is to be used in harmony with semantic XHTML and therefore understand the dangers of using a table.  These people obviously don't.  Of course, the minute their boss asks for mobile support, they come running to you because they now realize "DOH! Tables are too wide! AHH! Tables make the page size too big!" They will have to learn their lesson eventually.
  • If someone says "I know JavaScript, here... " and they show you a validation function, then you need to explain to them that JavaScript isn't merely a scripting language, but is rather a very powerful object-oriented/functional programming language which often puts strongly-typed languages to shame.  It includes closures, namespaces, an extremely rich object system, object-oriented access levels, multi cast events, and a boat load of core JavaScript objects.  Yet web 1.0 developers haven't the first clue. This problem isn’t nearly as bad as it used to be, though. MSDN magazine devoted some time to the topic in the May 2007 issue and the number of JavaScript experts in the Microsoft community is growing very rapidly.
  • If someone says "Hmm... I don't see the control you are talking about in my toolbox", then you know you are dealing with a coder.  Not only that, you're probably dealing with a person who has never, ever learned what semantic development even is.  Typically people like this will use the dead concept of a WYSIWYG designer to drag-n-drop controls and set properties with their mouse.  Clearly, these people focus more on how something seems to look at the moment, not how the page is actually built.  Pragmatists.  Personally, I’ve never designer support into anything, ever. If you can’t program it, don’t develop it! I personally find it extremely unprofessional to even allow designer-support. The target audience typically has absolutely no concept of the difference between a semantic <h1></h1> and a pragmatic <div id="myHeader"></div>.  Not only will their code cause problems down the road, your code will never integrate with it, which, of course, means you will be rewriting everything. Anyone who understands the importance of semantic XHTML understands the sheer severity of this problem.  You will break a page's structure by relying on a designer.  A designer should only be used by a professional who knows how to fix it's flaws.  Since only a professional would be able to fix the flaws, it follows that only a professional should do web development.  Duh?  For more information on semantic XHTML, see any modern web 2.0 book or my mini-article here (a quick note-- when I was formatting this post in WLW, every one of my list items would start a new list-- if I didn't understand semantic XHTML, I would have been completely stuck [also notice I'm using the semantic term "list item" not the syntactical term "<li />"-- focus on what things ARE, not what they DO-- try focusing on what something IS using a WYDIWYG designer!])

I know I've written about this topic before, but it's is just such a critically important topic.  Just because someone does something, that doesn't mean they are in that profession.  I change my own oil and change my tires, but this doesn't make me a mechanic.  A few months ago I was talking to a guy who actually said that he doesn't care about what he produces, because "it's just a job".  Just a job!?  Why don't you just get another one!  These people need to stop masquerading as web developers, stop undercutting my professional company by offering $3.75/hour unprofessional "development", start upping their own standards and start showing a little respect to us that were here first.  To a lot of us professionals this isn’t just a “job”; it’s actually become part of us! Unfortunately, I've learned years ago that people don't change.  Not for their marriage, not for their family, and especially not for their careers.  It's hopeless.  Moving on.

Free Templated Data Bound Custom Controls Chapter

Google Book Search, must like most Google products, is a great gift to humanity.  I often find myself going there to read a chapter in a book to quickly get up to speed or to review a topic.  Today, while I was reviewing a few new ASP.NET books, I came across the book ASP.NET AJAX Programming Tricks on Google Books.  The first two chapters are "Http Modules Demystified" and "Templated Data Bound Custom Controls" and are freely viewable.  This is a great reference for anyone looking to learn how to build more powerful custom controls or for anyone who needs a quick refresher.

One thing I did notice, is that the chapter looks very much like chapter 29 in ASP.NET 3.5 Unleashed.  In fact, not only is the content the same, they had the same order of the content is the same.  Furthermore, they use almost the same "tab control" example.  Ouch.  Before anyone says the P word, I would like to mention that ASP.NET AJAX Programming Tricks was released first. 


ASP.NET 3.5 Web Site and Application

One of the most horrendously thing about ASP.NET 1.1 was that the developers confused a web site and a project.  All that did was allow a severe influx of desktop developers into the web world that had no right to call themselves web developers.  ASP.NET 1.1 even added resx files for web forms and of course since the file was there, many developers (senior level!) actually thought they were required files.  That didn't stop me drop regularly going into CVS and DELETING them.  Worthless.

Fortunately, ASP.NET 2.0 fixed this problem by making sure that people realized that a web site was NOT a project.  This made everything so much easier to work with.  Furthermore, now we had the beautiful CodeFile page directive attribute so that we didn't have to rely on VS for everything.  There was also no need for absolutely ridiculous and redundant designer or resources files for web forms.  The ASP.NET guys were finally conforming to the preexisting conditions of the web, instead of trying to come up with a new [flawed] paradigm.

HOWEVER! Apparently the ASP.NET 3.5 team fell asleep at the wheel because I'm having horrendous flashbacks to the slop of ASP.NET 1.1.  First of all, when you add a web site, you are adding a project.  I don't WANT a csproj file for my web site!  Secondly, web forms have returned to using the completely useless CodeBehind attribute.  It took me QUITE a bit of debugging to finally realize this.  Third, every single web form now has a completely meaningless X.designer.cs file.  This also took me a while to realize.

I realized this when I kept getting an error telling me that type X.Y didn't match type X.Y.  What?  Yes it does!  After I finally fixed that error (can't even remember how), I kept getting that one stupid error telling you that your type is in two separate places.  HOW?  This was a new project!  I haven't done anything yet!  It turns out that the designer.cs file had become out of date between the time I typed up my added my custom control to the page and ran it.  Err... what?  This is beyond frustrating.

There's good news though.  The ASP.NET team wasn't completely asleep.  You can add an ASP.NET web site or an ASP.NET web application.  Yes, I realized there's no REAL difference, but for some reason they decided to make a whimsical split (I suspect it was a political or PM decision-- the ASP.NET team is smarter than that).  Perhaps they wanted to aid the old VB developers, who I would argue have no right to put things on the web anyhow (i.e. they are web coders, not web development professionals!)

If you add a ASP.NET web application, you get the old ASP.NET 1.1 style of hard to use nonsense.  On the other hand, if you add a ASP.NET web site, you get the appropriate ASP.NET 2.0 style.  Personally, I say forget both.  I always just create a folder and then "open web site".  Done.  Most of the time, however, I just start a project by checking my continually changing solution template out of subversion.  Again, DONE.  This is why it took me 8 months to finally notice this.  I don't even want to think about how many sloppy intern or VB6-developer created applications I'm going to have to clean up based on this painfully flawed design.

10 Things Most Developers Didn't Know in 2007

To end 2007, I thought I would make a list of things which I found that most developers didn't know.  To make things more interesting, this list is actually a series of 10 mini-articles that I wrote today.  Since this article has several sub-articles, here's a table of contents to help you out (these aren't really in any order of importance):

#1  SQL Server supports powerful subqueries as anonymous sets.

Many developers don't take the time to seriously look at T-SQL or SQL Server internals.  As such, they miss many of SQL Server's more powerful features.  In January 2007, when co-worker saw he write the following query, he about fell out of his seat:

select MemberName, m.MemberId, count(*) from (select 
    distinct MemberId, 
    from VisitSession 
    where MemberId is not null) a 
inner join Member m on a.MemberId = m.MemberId 
group by m.MemberId, MemberName, VisitUserAgent 
having count(*) > 1 
order by count(*) desc 

For starters, the guy didn't know you could do a filter after a group by, but that's not my point.  He had no idea that SQL Server (2000) allows you to use subqueries or use subqueries as anonymous sets.  As you can see, you can select from the list as well as use it in a join.  This tidbit alone should toss many painfully slow cursor-based stored procedures into the trash.  It's a simple SQL feature, but it's a powerful one.

#2  Firefox has an operating-system style console for web application debugging.

It's incredibly hard to find an ASP.NET web developer who knows this one.  It's a feature that knocks people right off their seats.  Instead of throwing alerts all over your AJAX applications, you can use the Firefox console and the dump( ) function.  Did I mention this has been a native feature since Firefox 1.0?

Step 1 (start Firefox with -console switch)

Step 2 (add the boolean key 'browser.dom.window.dump' to the Firefox configuration an set it to true)

Then simply call dump( ), instead of alert( ) and you're done. Your output will go to the Firefox console window (which looks almost exactly like a cmd window).

With this technique you can entirely avoid any possibility of having an infinite loops of alerts.  Personally, I like to track all the output of my web applications.  This comes in very handy when I'm using event capturing or need to watch the progressive state of my application.  When I do this, I also like to write an output identifier to each data dump.  Here's a sample of what I usually use for debugging:

var Configuration = { 
    Debug: false

var Debug = { 
    counter: 0, 
    write: function(text) { 
        if(Configuration && Configuration.Debug) { 
    writeLine: function(text) { 
        if(Configuration && Configuration.Debug) { 
            dump(Debug.counter + ':'+ text + '\n'); 

Here's some sample output using the Debug.writeLine( ) abstraction:

Leaves alert( ) in the dust, doesn't it? You can actually learn more about this technique and others from my Firefox for ASP.NET Web Developer video series found on my blog.  These topics are crucial to your understanding of modern web development.

#3  JavaScript has natively handled loosely-coupled multi-cast events for years.

This isn't something just for the Firefox, Opera, Safari world.  Even IE6 has native support for this feature. I'm not sure why this is, but in September 2007 when I was designing the AJAX exam for Brainbench, not a single one of the reviewers knew that JavaScript natively supported loosely-coupled multi-cast events.  I actually comments from almost all of the reviewers telling me that I should "leave server-side questions out of the exam".

JavaScript loosely-coupled multi-cast events are one of the most important core features of AJAX applications. They allow you to quickly and efficiently attach multiple event handlers to the XHTML same element. This becomes critically important when you are with multiple AJAX components, each of which that want to have an event handler attached to the load event of the window object.

I wrote an article about this in September 2007, so I'm not going to go into any kind of details here.  You my also opt to view this file from my SolutionTemplate, which supplements that blog entry.

#4  Not all image formats are created equal.

A few months ago, I came in as lead architect about half way through a project.  After having a few people fired for absolute incompetence, I did find a few people (PHP guys) who were ready, willing, and actually able to learn ASP.NET.  Everything was going well until the designer came back with his new theme and my associate whom I was training implemented it.  Everyone thought the project was going fine until I stepped in the room.  It didn't take but 10 seconds for a red flag to go up.  Just looking at the web site I could tell that this theme implementation was a disaster.  I noticed that there were signs of JPEG compression all over every single one of the images.  However, being a scientist and part-engineer I knew that measurement was a major key to success.  So, I whipped out Firebug, hit refresh and felt my jaw drop.  The landing page was 1.5MB.  Ouch.

You absolutely can not use one single image format for ever image on your web site, especially not the deadly JPEG format which does little more than destroy your images.  There are rules which web developers must need to follow or else a project is doomed to failure.  First off, you need to be using PNG24s for the all important images, while comparing their file sizes and quality with PNG8 compression.  Using Adobe Photoshop's Save For Web feature is very helpful for this.  If the image is a photo or something with many "real life" colors and shades, perhaps you want to do a size and quality comparison against a JPEG version as well.  If you absolutely need to have transparent images for IE6, then you need to take extreme care and either make special PNG versions for each background or, if you don't care too much about quality and the image is small with very few colors, use a GIF with transparencies.  The same goes for Firefox and printing.  Firefox (as of 2.0) does not print transparent PNG images.  So, if you want to support printing in Firefox, then you need to either make special PNG images for each background or make low-quality GIF images.

Needless to say, the designers theme had to go under severe reconstruction.  Not just because of the image sizes, but because he felt the need to design special input box, textarea, and button controls.  His design would have worked well for a WPF application, but this is the web (... but don't even get me started on the fact that his design for a wide screen monitor at over 1300x800.  The design was useless anyhow!)  The next project I ran as lead architect went much smoother.  Because it was extremely AJAX intensive, everything was minimized to the absolute core.  Each page had the minimal default.css plus it's own CSS sheet and only included the JavaScript it needed.  The web site landing page included barely anything and even had it's own extremely stripped down version of the JavaScript files.  For this project, I went from 350K in development to 80k in production.

#5  Custom server controls are not esoteric, complicated, or take too long to create.

  This seems to be a very common misconception amongst ASP.NET developers.  The reality, however, is that creating server controls is often a very trivial task.  Yet, many developers will use a GridView or other canned control for everything.  The GridView is awesome for basic tabular in a very simple, data-driven applications, but I can rarely use it.  On the other hand, I love the repeater and rely on it for almost everything.  Actually, it and the Literal are my two favorite controls.  I have to rely on these two controls to ensure that my AJAX applications are extremely optimized.  One of the beautiful things about .NET is that every ASP.NET control is simply a .NET class, which means that you can programmatically reuse them, inherit from them, and override their internals.  Thus, allowing us to create some powerful and elegant custom server controls.

On the same project with the overly sizes image files, we had an interesting meeting about how to show a media play list on a web page.  There was all kinds of talk about using Flash to create a media play list.  The conversation was quickly giving me an allergic reaction.  So, after hearing all kinds of absolutely insane quotes of time for creating a Flash play list, I decided to take matters in to my own hands.  Two hours later I handed the client a complete play list from A to Z.  To be clear, I had built this one something I had already had, but the grand total of time was them about 3 hours.  It's amazing what you can do when you understand the .NET framework design guidelines and aren't afraid to follow best-practices.

Here is how you would use a similar control:

<%@ Register Assembly="Jampad.Web" Namespace="Jampad.Web.Controls" TagPrefix="j" %>

<j:Media id="media01" runat="server" />

In your code behind, you would have something that looked like this:

media01.DataSource = MediaAdapter.GetContent(this.MemberGuid);

Upon loading the page, the data was bound and the output was a perfect XHTML structure that could them be customized in any number of ways using the power of CSS.  How do you make something like this happen?  It's simple, here is a similar control (Media.cs) placed in a class library (WebControls.csproj):

using System;
using System.Web;
using System.Web.UI;
using System.Web.UI.HtmlControls;
using System.Web.UI.WebControls;

namespace Jampad.Web.Controls
    [ToolboxData("<:Media runat=\"server\"></:Media>")]
    public class Media : CompositeControl
        private Repeater repeater;

        public Media( ) {

        private Object dataSource;

        public Object DataSource {
            get { return dataSource; }
            set { dataSource = value; }

        protected override void CreateChildControls( ) {
            HtmlGenericControl div = new HtmlGenericControl("div");
            div.Attributes.Add("class", "media-list");

            try {
                repeater = new Repeater( );
                repeater.DataSource = this.DataSource;
                repeater.ItemTemplate = new MediaTemplate(ListItemType.Item);
                repeater.HeaderTemplate = new MediaTemplate(ListItemType.Header);
                repeater.FooterTemplate = new MediaTemplate(ListItemType.Footer);
                repeater.DataBind( );
            catch (Exception ex) {
                Literal error = new Literal( );
                error.Text = "<span class=\"error-message\">" + ex.Message + "</a>";

            base.CreateChildControls( );

Notice the use of the repeater control.  This is the same control we use in ASP.NET as <asp:Repeater />.  Since this is .NET, we can use it programmatically to create our own powerful controls.  Also notice the various templates that are being set on the Repeater.  These are the same templates you would set declaratively in an ASPX page.  In this case, I'm programmatically assigning to these templates an instance of MediaTemplate (in MediaTemplate.cs).  This MediaTemplate.cs is just another file thrown in a class library, in our case the same WebControls.csproj, though since it's just a class, it could be in a different assembly and namespace altogether. Here's what the MediaTemplate.cs looks like:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using System.Web.UI.WebControls;
using System.Web.UI;

namespace Jampad.Web.Controls
    internal class MediaTemplate : ITemplate
        ListItemType type = new ListItemType( );

        public MediaTemplate(ListItemType type) {
            this.type = type;

        public void InstantiateIn(Control container) {
            Literal lit = new Literal( );
            switch(type) {
                case ListItemType.Header:

                case ListItemType.Item:
                    lit.DataBinding += new EventHandler(delegate(Object sender, System.EventArgs ea) {
                        Literal literal = (Literal)sender;
                        RepeaterItem item = (RepeaterItem)literal.NamingContainer;
                        literal.Text += String.Format("<div class=\"media-item\">\n");
                        literal.Text += String.Format("  <div class=\"media-item-inner\">\n");
                        literal.Text += String.Format("    <a href=\"\"><img src=\"\" alt=\"Media\" class=\"media-thumb\" /></a>\n", (String)DataBinder.Eval(item.DataItem, "mediaPath"), (String)DataBinder.Eval(item.DataItem, "thumbPath"));
                        literal.Text += String.Format("  </div>\n");
                        literal.Text += String.Format("  <div class=\"media-item-bottom\"></div>\n");
                        literal.Text += String.Format("</div>\n\n");

                case ListItemType.AlternatingItem:

                case ListItemType.Footer:

Simply compile those to together and you're set.  You can even embed (hopefully tiny) images in your project to make things even more seamless.  Using this simple pattern, I've created all kinds of things.  You can see a real example of this, including image embedding, in my SQL Feed Framework (formerly known as Data Feed Framework).  It's InfoBlock controls follow this same pattern.  For much better examples, whip out reflector and start digging around the System.Web namespaces.

It's actually rather astonishing to learn of some of the attituted some developers have about custom controls. When I was one of the editors for an ASP.NET 2.0 exam last year, I noticed one of the questions ask which type of control was "harder" to create. The answers were something like "User Control", "Custom Control", and a few others. They were looking for the answer "Custom Control". Since "harder" is not only a relative term, but also a subjective and an abstract one, the question had no actual meaning. Custom controls aren't "harder" than user controls.

#6  Most developers I worked with in 2007 had never heard of an O/R mapper.

Why do most developers still absolutely insist on wasting their time writing a chain of SqlConnection, SqlCommand, and SqlDataAdapter?  Perhaps it's just an addiction to being busy instead of actually being productive that causes this.  I don't know.  I would, however, expect these developers have to have some curiosity that there may be an easier way.  ADO.NET is awesome stuff and it is the foundation for all .NET O/R mappers, but if I'm not throwing around 1,000,000 records at a time with SqlBulkCopy, I'm not interested in working with ADO.NET directly.  We need to have a system that allows us to get what we want instead of forcing us to screw about with low-level mechanics.  It's no secret that I'm a huge supporter of Frans Bouma's work with LLBLGen Pro and I also use LINQ in most of my .NET 3.5 applications.  For a corporate .NET 2.0 project, there's absolutely no excuse to not pay the $300 for LLBLGen Pro.  Managers!  Open the wallets!  It will save you money.

However, it's not always about the money.  Even if the developers knew about O/R mapping, and the company isn't from in a poverty-stricken 3rd world country, sometimes extreme pride, lack of personal integrity, and political alignment can destroy any chance of being productive.  A long time ago I worked at a company where I thought I would be productive.  Five or so weeks into the design phase of the project, we received a politically-focused project manager as big brother.  He was absolutely against the use of any modern technology and despised the idea of an O/R mapper.  He instead told us that we were to write a stored procedure for every possible piece of interaction that would happen.  He also wanted us to use Microsoft's data application block to access the stored procedures.  At one point he said that this was their O/R mapper, showing that he had no idea what an O/R mapper was.

A few days after his reign had started, I took an hour or so to write up a 12 page review document covering various aspects of LLBLGen Pro and how they would work on the project.  I thought it was a very convincing document.  In fact, one guy looked at it and was convinced that I took it from the LLBLGen web site.  The project manager, however, was beginning to be annoyed (this is not uncommon with me and old-school project managers!)  The project manager decided to call together a panel of his "best" offshore developers and put me in what basically amounted to be a doctoral defense.  Prior to the meeting I sent out my "dissertation" and asked everyone to read it before they arrived at the meeting so that they would be prepared for the discussion.  When it was time for the meeting, I was told to sit at one side of a large meeting table and the project manager and his team sat at the other.  Then the disaster began.  First off, not one single person on that team had read my document.  Secondly, for the next 45 minutes they asked me basic questions that the document would have answered.  Even after they admitted that I had answered all of their concerns to their satisfaction and being told by their team that LLBLGen Pro was obviously a very productive tool, they reached the conclusion that they still weren't going to use it.  It was a waste of my time and I still want those 45 minutes of my life back.

What was really interesting about my defense was the developer's code.  In the meeting, the developers had showed me their [virtually unreadable, anti-.NET framework design guidelines, inefficient, insecure] .NET project code and I was shocked to see how much time they wasted on writing the same stuff over and over and over again.  When they showed me their stored procedures, I about passed out.  It's a wonder how any of their systems run.  They were overridden with crazy dynamic SQL and cursors.  They even had most of the business logic in the data access tier.  The concept of N-tier architecture was not something that they understood at all.  I think that's the point where I gave up on my defense.  If a developer doesn't even understand the critical need for N-layer and N-tier architecture, there's just no way they will be able to understand the need for an O/R mapper.  It's actually one of the fastest way to find a coder hiding amongst professionals.  Their SQL/ADO.NET code was also obviously not strongly-typed.  This was one of the core points of an O/R mapper and these developers could not understand that.  They could not see the benefit of having an entity called Person in place of the string "Persno" (deliberate misspelling).

This project didn't really take off at all, but for what parts I was involved, I used the next best thing to an O/R mapper: a strongly-typed data-set.  Read this carefully: there is no shame in using a strongly-typed data set if you don't have an O/R mapper.  They are no where near as powerful, but they are often good enough to efficiently build your prototypes so that the presentation layer can be built   You can replace the data access components later.

The training of developers in the use of LLBLGen Pro and LINQ O/R mapping was one of the main reasons I publicly released both my Minima Blog Engine and my Minima 3.5 Blog Engine source code to the public in 2007.  You are free to use these examples in your own training as you see fit. 

For more information and for some example of using an O/R mapper, please some of my resources below:

#7  You don't need to use SOAP for everything.

This is one of the reasons I wrote my XmlHttp Service Interop series in March and May 2007.  Sometimes straight up HTTP calls are good enough.  They are quick, simple, and light-weight.  If you want more structure, you can simply use XML serialization to customize the smallest possible data format you can think of.  No SOAP envelope required.

Here are the parts to my series:

Also keep in mind that you don't need to keep JSON to JavaScript.  It's a beautiful format that could easily be an amazing structured replacement for flat CSV files.  RESTful interfaces using GET or POST with HTTP headers are also a great way to communication using very little bandwidth.  My AJAX applications rely heavily on these techniques, but I've also used them for some behind the scenes work as well.

One great example of how you can use RESTful services is by looking at the interface of the ESV Bible Web Service V2. In November 2007, I wrote a .NET 3.5-based framework to abstract the REST calls from the developer. By looking at my freely available source code, you can see how I'm interacting with the very light-weight REST service.

#8  A poor implementation of even the most beautiful database model can lead to a disaster.

For more information on this topic, see my October 2007 post entitled "SQL Server Database Model Optimization for Developers". Here is an abstract:

It's my assessment that most developers have no idea how much a poor database model implementation or implementation by a DBA unfamiliar with the data semantics can affect a system. Furthermore, most developers whom I have worked don't really understand the internals of SQL Server enough to be able to make informed decisions for their project. Suggestions concerning the internals of SQL Server are often met with extremely reluctance from developers.

#9  Most web developers have no idea how to build a proper XHTML structure.

XHTML is not HTML and shouldn't be be treated like it is.  While HTML is a presentation format, XHTML is a structure format.  You can use HTML for visual formatting, but XHTML simply defines a structure.  In August 2007, I wrote an article entitled "Coders and Professional Programmers" and in it I discussed some of the differences between coders who have no clue what's going on, but who overwhelm the technology world and rare programming professionals.  I didn't go into to many specifics in this article, but one of the things I had in mind was the severe lack of XHTML knowledge that coders have.  What's profound is that XHTML is probably the single most basic web development topic in existence, yet people just have no idea how to use it properly.

When you come at a web project and you have defined your user experience, you need to materialize that definition.  You do not go about this by dragging and dropping a bunch of visual elements on a screen and nesting 4 tables.  Well, if you do, then you're probably a coder, not a professional.  Building your interface structure is actually rather similar to building a database model in that you need to define your entities and semantic meaning.  So, when you look at the top of you landing page, you need to avoid thinking "this is a 4em piece of italic black text" and simply say that this it a heading.  What type of heading?  If it's he most important heading, then it would probably internally translate to a h1 element.  In the same way, if you have text on your screen, you should avoid doing this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.<br/>

Mauris nonummy, risus in fermentum.<br/>

By doing this, you are completely destroying any possibility of text formatting.  You have also fallen into he world of telling a system how to do it's job.  Just think about how we work with XML.  Do you go in and tell the system how to parse the information or how to scan for a certain element?  No, the entire point of abstraction is so that we can get closer and closer to telling the system what we want instead of telling it how to do it's job.  In XML, we simply state an XPath and we're done.  With XHTML, we don't want to say "put text here, break, put more text here, and break again".  You could think of the above HTML code as a "procedural structure".  What if we used a more object-oriented model?  In an object-oriented model, we focus on the semantics of the entities and this is exactly how we are to design in XHTML.  A proper way to declare our text would be like this:

<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.</p>

<p>Mauris nonummy, risus in fermentum.</p>

Now, instead of telling the system how to do it's job we state that we want two paragraphs.  Done.  By focusing on the semantic representation we are closer to focusing on the purpose of the application and letting the system do whatever it does best.  Furthermore, since XHTML is a structural format and not a presentation format, we have another technology for presentation, namely, CSS.  With our new XHTML sturcture we can simply attach a default.css document to every page on the web site and in a centralized manner state the following to format every single document on our web site in an instant.  You couldn't beat the power of that with quantum parallelism (well... maybe).

p {
font-family: Georgia, times new roman, serif;
font-size: 90%;
line-height: 1.1em;

Every single item in XHTML has some purpose and a set of guidelines attached to it to allow you to choose the correct element to match your semantic meaning.  This is a long and fancy way of saying, don't use divs for everything!  A div is a containment unit, not something to hold every single thing in all the world just so that you can use more CSS in a misguided attempt to look modern.  Use divs for containment, not for giving IDs to text.  So, what should you use?  Whatever closely matches your needs.  For example, when you are adding a single horizontal menu or tab list to your user experience, you should avoid using a bloated HTML table, which will force longer load times and basically kill your chanced for mobile support.  You should also avoid throwing together a list of divs in a parent div, which provides to semantic meaning at all.  This would be like declaring all your .NET objects as Object and using reflection everything you wanted to access anything.  Rather, you want to ask yourself "to what data structure does this object most closely map?"  In this case, it's basically a simple list or a collection.  What XHTML element most closely brings out this item's meaning?  Depending if the list is an ordered list or an unordered list, your XHTML element will be either a <ul/> or an <ol/>.

What if you wanted to show a column of images where the image metadata (i.e. title, date, description) was to the right of each image image?  Do we use a bloated table?  No, your load time will go through the roof, your DOM interaction will be come prohibitively complex, and your mobile support will be shot.  Do we use a series of divs with CSS floating?  No, again, this in no way reflects any semantic relation of the entity.   To what data structure does this closely maps?  Think about it.  It's a series of "things" where each thing has two sub-components (image and data).  This is a dictionary.  In XHTML, the closest element you have to a dictionary is a <dl/>.  The dl contains an alternating series of data terms (<dt/>) and a data definitions (<dd/>) to allow you to present your data in a way that makes sense.  You don't have a full semantic representation as you would with a "imagelist" element, but you are accurately representing the fact that this is a dictionary.

After you have defined your complete structure, you may then start to modify the elements using CSS.  Your headings and titles (mapped to h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,6) will be formatted according to their requirements as will all your paragraphs (mapped to p).  You will also modify your ol, ul, and dl lists to match your visual requirements.  Your <ul/> or <ol/> lists will probably have something like the following:

ul {
list-style-type: none;
padding: 0;

ul li {
display: inline;
/* or float: left; depending on how you want to format them. */
/* Floating would keep the list items as block elements thereby */
/* allowing more padding and margin tweaking. */

With your dl may have something similar to this:

dl {
width: 300px;

dl dt,
dl dd {
float: left;

dl dt {
clear: both;

This technique of semantically mapping entities to visual elements is neither new or isolated to web development.  The Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) allows a similar technique.  You can define a simple ListBox which contains your raw data for your series of elements (e.g. icon list, list of names, menu).  Then you apply a Style to enhance the user experience.  Elements in XHTML and elements in XAML don't really have their own look and feel, but are, rather, structural entities which allow you to define the element's semantic representation to reality to which later the look and feel can be applied.

#10  CSS is not simply a technology to allow simple font size, color, and style changes.

It's a very powerful technology which allows us to efficiently create powerful web solutions.  It can allow help us preserve ASP.NET caching and help us to avoid page recompilation.  Furthermore, a proper CSS architecture can bring us media specific CSS to enable us to efficiently customize our web pages for print and for mobile devices.  As if that weren't enough, CSS themes can allow us to quickly deploy branded web sites.

Unfortunately, however, CSS architecture is not something known by too many web developers, especially ASP.NET developers.  Back in May 2007, I wrote an article on my blog entitled "CSS Architecture Overview", so I won't go into any more details here.

Those were the top 10 things in 2007 which I found developers to be the most ignorant.  It's not really an exhaustive list and doesn't cover things like the lack of understanding how MSIL maps to reality, how JavaScript deals with variable scope, or how you may not need to waste company resources on SQL Server 2005 Standard when express may work just fine for your requirements.  Some of these topics are closer to my core speciality than others, but each of them represents an incredibly important segment of technology which web solution architects must take into account.  Looking back over the list of articles I wrote the open source projects I released and the various clients and developers I worked with in 2007, this has easily been by busiest year ever.  This won't be stopping in 2008.  Hopefully an increased knowledge base and an stronger adherence to best practices will turn more and more coders into professional in 2008 and beyond.

To learn more about some of these topics or even related ones, be sure to walk around my blog a bit and to subscribe to my my RSS feed.

Powered by
Python / Django / Elasticsearch / Azure / Nginx / CentOS 7

Mini-icons are part of the Silk Icons set of icons at famfamfam.com