office automation

I want to count words of .doc ,.ppt,.xls,.html,.rtf i done all things with
interop but it is not working on my webserver so do you know any component by
which i give facility in my application to count words
Kbalz wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

you say for this link i try it but it is not working

>>

>[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Mark Rae
>ASP.NET MVPhttp://www.markrae.net

>
>The automation could save you $500 quickly depending on what scale of
>usage you are talking about.

--
Message posted via DotNetMonster.com
http://www.dotnetmonster.com/Uwe/Fo...sp-net/200710/1"akshar108 via DotNetMonster.com" <u37462@.uwewrote in message
news:79383d837bf05@.uwe...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I want to count words of .doc ,.ppt,.xls,.html,.rtf i done all things with
interop but it is not working on my webserver so do you know any component
by
which i give facility in my application to count words

http://www.aspose.com/Products/Default.aspx
--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

Okay to Exclude both Name and ID?

I'm dynamically building an HTML <table> that has a bunch of rows - each of
which presents read-only data in DIVs.
Just wondering if it's okay to omit both the Name and Id attribute of the
DIV tags in the table - or if there is some good reason why I should go to
the effort to create a unique Name or Id value for each (which would also
increase processing time and render more verbose html). Given that I have no
client- nor server-side code that references the DIVs, I might as well keep
things simpler. But my concern is that there might be some "gotcha" lurking
if I do this... perhaps some browsers wouldn't like it... Any thoughts on
this?
Thanks.Good question, GMan,
The ID is used to get a handle on Controls that you need to work with. The
Name attribute is for the client. So, assuming that you don't need to
manipulate your Controls on either server or client-side, you would have no
other need for these properties to be set.
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
.Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
I get paid good money to
solve puzzles for a living
"Guadala Harry" <GMan@.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:u32iwX5uEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm dynamically building an HTML <table> that has a bunch of rows - each
of
> which presents read-only data in DIVs.
> Just wondering if it's okay to omit both the Name and Id attribute of the
> DIV tags in the table - or if there is some good reason why I should go to
> the effort to create a unique Name or Id value for each (which would also
> increase processing time and render more verbose html). Given that I have
no
> client- nor server-side code that references the DIVs, I might as well
keep
> things simpler. But my concern is that there might be some "gotcha"
lurking
> if I do this... perhaps some browsers wouldn't like it... Any thoughts on
> this?
> Thanks.
>
div's do not support a name attribute. the id attribute is optional, but if
used should be unique and follow the w3c naming conventions (asp.net breaks
this rule).
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
"Guadala Harry" <GMan@.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:u32iwX5uEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm dynamically building an HTML <table> that has a bunch of rows - each
of
> which presents read-only data in DIVs.
> Just wondering if it's okay to omit both the Name and Id attribute of the
> DIV tags in the table - or if there is some good reason why I should go to
> the effort to create a unique Name or Id value for each (which would also
> increase processing time and render more verbose html). Given that I have
no
> client- nor server-side code that references the DIVs, I might as well
keep
> things simpler. But my concern is that there might be some "gotcha"
lurking
> if I do this... perhaps some browsers wouldn't like it... Any thoughts on
> this?
> Thanks.
>

Okay to Exclude both Name and ID?

I'm dynamically building an HTML <table> that has a bunch of rows - each of
which presents read-only data in DIVs.

Just wondering if it's okay to omit both the Name and Id attribute of the
DIV tags in the table - or if there is some good reason why I should go to
the effort to create a unique Name or Id value for each (which would also
increase processing time and render more verbose html). Given that I have no
client- nor server-side code that references the DIVs, I might as well keep
things simpler. But my concern is that there might be some "gotcha" lurking
if I do this... perhaps some browsers wouldn't like it... Any thoughts on
this?

Thanks.Good question, GMan,

The ID is used to get a handle on Controls that you need to work with. The
Name attribute is for the client. So, assuming that you don't need to
manipulate your Controls on either server or client-side, you would have no
other need for these properties to be set.

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
I get paid good money to
solve puzzles for a living

"Guadala Harry" <GMan@.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:u32iwX5uEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm dynamically building an HTML <table> that has a bunch of rows - each
of
> which presents read-only data in DIVs.
> Just wondering if it's okay to omit both the Name and Id attribute of the
> DIV tags in the table - or if there is some good reason why I should go to
> the effort to create a unique Name or Id value for each (which would also
> increase processing time and render more verbose html). Given that I have
no
> client- nor server-side code that references the DIVs, I might as well
keep
> things simpler. But my concern is that there might be some "gotcha"
lurking
> if I do this... perhaps some browsers wouldn't like it... Any thoughts on
> this?
> Thanks.
div's do not support a name attribute. the id attribute is optional, but if
used should be unique and follow the w3c naming conventions (asp.net breaks
this rule).

-- bruce (sqlwork.com)

"Guadala Harry" <GMan@.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:u32iwX5uEHA.1300@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm dynamically building an HTML <table> that has a bunch of rows - each
of
> which presents read-only data in DIVs.
> Just wondering if it's okay to omit both the Name and Id attribute of the
> DIV tags in the table - or if there is some good reason why I should go to
> the effort to create a unique Name or Id value for each (which would also
> increase processing time and render more verbose html). Given that I have
no
> client- nor server-side code that references the DIVs, I might as well
keep
> things simpler. But my concern is that there might be some "gotcha"
lurking
> if I do this... perhaps some browsers wouldn't like it... Any thoughts on
> this?
> Thanks.

Old website mix with asp.net 2

I have a legacy website has only html, how do I add a asp.net pages (.aspx)
to that and develope in VS 2005?http://msconline.maconstate.edu/tutorials/default.aspx
"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:eLUBmQKVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04
.phx.gbl...
>I have a legacy website has only html, how do I add a asp.net pages (.aspx)
to that and develope in VS 2005?
>
This is my exact question:
I tried to create the new website in VS 2005, then add my new aspx pages, it
fine, I can compile and run.
The next question comes up, when I implement my C# class, eg. the namespace
is Employee.
In the code-behind, I want to include the "Employee" namespace in the using
clause but the compilar did not find that.
"Jon Paal" <Jon[ nospam ]Paal @. everywhere dot com> wrote in message
news:%23CMtrtKVHHA.4796@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> http://msconline.maconstate.edu/tutorials/default.aspx
>
> "Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eLUBmQKVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
sorry, I don't use codebehind or c#
"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:OVe5YBLVHHA.388@.TK2MSFTNGP04.
phx.gbl...
> This is my exact question:
> I tried to create the new website in VS 2005, then add my new aspx pages,
it fine, I can compile and run.
> The next question comes up, when I implement my C# class, eg. the namespac
e is Employee.
> In the code-behind, I want to include the "Employee" namespace in the usin
g clause but the compilar did not find that.
>
> "Jon Paal" <Jon[ nospam ]Paal @. everywhere dot com> wrote in message news:
%23CMtrtKVHHA.4796@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
Hi,
Alan T wrote:
> This is my exact question:
> I tried to create the new website in VS 2005, then add my new aspx pages,
it
> fine, I can compile and run.
> The next question comes up, when I implement my C# class, eg. the namespac
e
> is Employee.
> In the code-behind, I want to include the "Employee" namespace in the usin
g
> clause but the compilar did not find that.
Did you include a reference to the DLL containing the Employee
namespace? The "using" directive is not doing that, it's merely a scope
information, avoiding that you have to write fully qualified names all
the time. When you want to use classes defined in an external assembly,
you must add a reference to it in your project. To do this, right-click
on the "References" folder in Visual Studio's solution explorer.
HTH,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering, Blog: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

Old website mix with asp.net 2

I have a legacy website has only html, how do I add a asp.net pages (.aspx)
to that and develope in VS 2005?http://msconline.maconstate.edu/tutorials/default.aspx
"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.auwrote in message news:eLUBmQKVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>I have a legacy website has only html, how do I add a asp.net pages (.aspx) to that and develope in VS 2005?
>

This is my exact question:

I tried to create the new website in VS 2005, then add my new aspx pages, it
fine, I can compile and run.
The next question comes up, when I implement my C# class, eg. the namespace
is Employee.
In the code-behind, I want to include the "Employee" namespace in the using
clause but the compilar did not find that.

"Jon Paal" <Jon[ nospam ]Paal @. everywhere dot comwrote in message
news:%23CMtrtKVHHA.4796@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

http://msconline.maconstate.edu/tutorials/default.aspx
>
>
>
"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:eLUBmQKVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>I have a legacy website has only html, how do I add a asp.net pages
>>(.aspx) to that and develope in VS 2005?
>>

>
>

sorry, I don't use codebehind or c#

"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.auwrote in message news:OVe5YBLVHHA.388@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

This is my exact question:
>
I tried to create the new website in VS 2005, then add my new aspx pages, it fine, I can compile and run.
The next question comes up, when I implement my C# class, eg. the namespace is Employee.
In the code-behind, I want to include the "Employee" namespace in the using clause but the compilar did not find that.
>
>
"Jon Paal" <Jon[ nospam ]Paal @. everywhere dot comwrote in message news:%23CMtrtKVHHA.4796@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>http://msconline.maconstate.edu/tutorials/default.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>"Alan T" <alanpltseNOSPAM@.yahoo.com.auwrote in message news:eLUBmQKVHHA.4832@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>>I have a legacy website has only html, how do I add a asp.net pages (.aspx) to that and develope in VS 2005?
>>>

>>
>>

>
>

Hi,

Alan T wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

This is my exact question:
>
I tried to create the new website in VS 2005, then add my new aspx pages, it
fine, I can compile and run.
The next question comes up, when I implement my C# class, eg. the namespace
is Employee.
In the code-behind, I want to include the "Employee" namespace in the using
clause but the compilar did not find that.

Did you include a reference to the DLL containing the Employee
namespace? The "using" directive is not doing that, it's merely a scope
information, avoiding that you have to write fully qualified names all
the time. When you want to use classes defined in an external assembly,
you must add a reference to it in your project. To do this, right-click
on the "References" folder in Visual Studio's solution explorer.

HTH,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering, Blog: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

On Migrating From HTML 4.0 to XHTML 1.0

So I have a non trivial ASP.NET 1.1 Web Application with custom controls
emitting HTML markup and good deal of static HTML in the aspx pages.

I'm wanting to make this thing fully XHTML 1.0 compliant.

My primary question is this: Can I reasonably migrate from HTML 4.0 to XHTML
1.0 *incrementally*? Or would everything totally break.

To clarify, I want to put different pieces into production at different
times (for a bunch of logistical reasons). If I do this, then I'd have
rendered pages sent to the browser with a mix of HTML 4.x and XHTML
1.0-compliant markup.

My secondary question is this: What do I use for the DTD when I have this
mix going on?

Alternatively, is it such an incredibly terrible thing to migrate from HTML
4.0 to XHTML 1.0 incrementally - and I'd really really really be better off
migrating all in one shot?

Thanks for your time and consideration!On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:33:16 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:

> My primary question is this: Can I reasonably migrate from HTML 4.0 to XHTML
> 1.0 *incrementally*? Or would everything totally break.

Each web page is an entity of itself, for the most part. That means you
can change one page at a time without much trouble in most cases.

How much work that is, depends on how much of your HTML needs to change.
For example, if you use a ton of font tags, then you're going to have some
work ahead of you.

If you already use CSS for most of your styling and aren't using any
deprectated features, and are already using all lower case tags, then it
might be a matter of making sure all your tags are closed (including unary
tags like <br/>) and a little touch up.

Of course there are lots of mitigating factors as well, and you have to be
using ASP.NET 2.0 to get XHTML compliant output.

> To clarify, I want to put different pieces into production at different
> times (for a bunch of logistical reasons). If I do this, then I'd have
> rendered pages sent to the browser with a mix of HTML 4.x and XHTML
> 1.0-compliant markup.

If by "mix" you mean in the same page, then that could be bad (maybe), but
if you mean one page might be XHTML and another HTML, then that's fine.

> My secondary question is this: What do I use for the DTD when I have this
> mix going on?

You mean DOCTYPE? If so, then you use an XHTML doctype for XHTML pages,
and HTML doctype for HTML pages.
Fred Mertz wrote:
> I'm wanting to make this thing fully XHTML 1.0 compliant.

Do you have a good reason for wanting to use XHTML?

http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
I read the article at your link, and... Good grief = this is insane. They
come out with a new standard and there are apparently a bunch of problems
with using it. Yes - it all makes sense; but what are we supposed to do?
Apparently the "logical" answer is to WAIT until the browsers come up to
speed. Yes?

What do you recommend? WHEN would it make sense, if ever, to migrate to
anything other than HTML 4.01?

-FM

"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44334271$1@.clear.net.nz...
> Fred Mertz wrote:
>> I'm wanting to make this thing fully XHTML 1.0 compliant.
> Do you have a good reason for wanting to use XHTML?
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
My "incremental" upgrade path would result in the mix of XHTML with HTML on
the same page...

-FM

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@.despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:pekohrjv0520.dlg@.funkenbusch.com...
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:33:16 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:
>> My primary question is this: Can I reasonably migrate from HTML 4.0 to
>> XHTML
>> 1.0 *incrementally*? Or would everything totally break.
> Each web page is an entity of itself, for the most part. That means you
> can change one page at a time without much trouble in most cases.
> How much work that is, depends on how much of your HTML needs to change.
> For example, if you use a ton of font tags, then you're going to have some
> work ahead of you.
> If you already use CSS for most of your styling and aren't using any
> deprectated features, and are already using all lower case tags, then it
> might be a matter of making sure all your tags are closed (including unary
> tags like <br/>) and a little touch up.
> Of course there are lots of mitigating factors as well, and you have to be
> using ASP.NET 2.0 to get XHTML compliant output.
>> To clarify, I want to put different pieces into production at different
>> times (for a bunch of logistical reasons). If I do this, then I'd have
>> rendered pages sent to the browser with a mix of HTML 4.x and XHTML
>> 1.0-compliant markup.
> If by "mix" you mean in the same page, then that could be bad (maybe), but
> if you mean one page might be XHTML and another HTML, then that's fine.
>> My secondary question is this: What do I use for the DTD when I have this
>> mix going on?
> You mean DOCTYPE? If so, then you use an XHTML doctype for XHTML pages,
> and HTML doctype for HTML pages.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:18:29 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:

> My "incremental" upgrade path would result in the mix of XHTML with HTML on
> the same page...

Then you need to be more careful. xhtml is essentially a subset of HTML.
That means you can create xhtml pages that conform to HTML. So, as long as
the pages contain some HTML you continue to use an HTML doctype.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:07:02 +1200, Nik Coughlin wrote:

> Fred Mertz wrote:
>> I'm wanting to make this thing fully XHTML 1.0 compliant.
> Do you have a good reason for wanting to use XHTML?
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

One argument the author ignores is validation. XHTML validation is
stricter than HTML validation, which means that you can validate your code
against an XHTML validator to ensure better markup. I agree with many of
his points, though. I just don't agree that XHTML is pointless.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:17:46 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:

> What do you recommend? WHEN would it make sense, if ever, to migrate to
> anything other than HTML 4.01?

As i said in another message, XHTML is basically a subset of HTML. Nothing
is stopping you from writing code that conforms to the XHTML subset with an
HTML doctype.
Thank you Erik for all of your helpful responses.

On Migrating From HTML 4.0 to XHTML 1.0

So I have a non trivial ASP.NET 1.1 Web Application with custom controls
emitting HTML markup and good deal of static HTML in the aspx pages.
I'm wanting to make this thing fully XHTML 1.0 compliant.
My primary question is this: Can I reasonably migrate from HTML 4.0 to XHTML
1.0 *incrementally*? Or would everything totally break.
To clarify, I want to put different pieces into production at different
times (for a bunch of logistical reasons). If I do this, then I'd have
rendered pages sent to the browser with a mix of HTML 4.x and XHTML
1.0-compliant markup.
My secondary question is this: What do I use for the DTD when I have this
mix going on?
Alternatively, is it such an incredibly terrible thing to migrate from HTML
4.0 to XHTML 1.0 incrementally - and I'd really really really be better off
migrating all in one shot?
Thanks for your time and consideration!On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:33:16 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:

> My primary question is this: Can I reasonably migrate from HTML 4.0 to XHT
ML
> 1.0 *incrementally*? Or would everything totally break.
Each web page is an entity of itself, for the most part. That means you
can change one page at a time without much trouble in most cases.
How much work that is, depends on how much of your HTML needs to change.
For example, if you use a ton of font tags, then you're going to have some
work ahead of you.
If you already use CSS for most of your styling and aren't using any
deprectated features, and are already using all lower case tags, then it
might be a matter of making sure all your tags are closed (including unary
tags like <br/> ) and a little touch up.
Of course there are lots of mitigating factors as well, and you have to be
using ASP.NET 2.0 to get XHTML compliant output.

> To clarify, I want to put different pieces into production at different
> times (for a bunch of logistical reasons). If I do this, then I'd have
> rendered pages sent to the browser with a mix of HTML 4.x and XHTML
> 1.0-compliant markup.
If by "mix" you mean in the same page, then that could be bad (maybe), but
if you mean one page might be XHTML and another HTML, then that's fine.

> My secondary question is this: What do I use for the DTD when I have this
> mix going on?
You mean DOCTYPE? If so, then you use an XHTML doctype for XHTML pages,
and HTML doctype for HTML pages.
Fred Mertz wrote:
> I'm wanting to make this thing fully XHTML 1.0 compliant.
Do you have a good reason for wanting to use XHTML?
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
I read the article at your link, and... Good grief = this is insane. They
come out with a new standard and there are apparently a bunch of problems
with using it. Yes - it all makes sense; but what are we supposed to do?
Apparently the "logical" answer is to WAIT until the browsers come up to
speed. Yes?
What do you recommend? WHEN would it make sense, if ever, to migrate to
anything other than HTML 4.01?
-FM
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44334271$1@.clear.net.nz...
> Fred Mertz wrote:
> Do you have a good reason for wanting to use XHTML?
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
>
My "incremental" upgrade path would result in the mix of XHTML with HTML on
the same page...
-FM
"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@.despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:pekohrjv0520.dlg@.funkenbusch.com...
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:33:16 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:
>
> Each web page is an entity of itself, for the most part. That means you
> can change one page at a time without much trouble in most cases.
> How much work that is, depends on how much of your HTML needs to change.
> For example, if you use a ton of font tags, then you're going to have some
> work ahead of you.
> If you already use CSS for most of your styling and aren't using any
> deprectated features, and are already using all lower case tags, then it
> might be a matter of making sure all your tags are closed (including unary
> tags like <br/> ) and a little touch up.
> Of course there are lots of mitigating factors as well, and you have to be
> using ASP.NET 2.0 to get XHTML compliant output.
>
> If by "mix" you mean in the same page, then that could be bad (maybe), but
> if you mean one page might be XHTML and another HTML, then that's fine.
>
> You mean DOCTYPE? If so, then you use an XHTML doctype for XHTML pages,
> and HTML doctype for HTML pages.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:18:29 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:

> My "incremental" upgrade path would result in the mix of XHTML with HTML o
n
> the same page...
Then you need to be more careful. xhtml is essentially a subset of HTML.
That means you can create xhtml pages that conform to HTML. So, as long as
the pages contain some HTML you continue to use an HTML doctype.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:07:02 +1200, Nik Coughlin wrote:

> Fred Mertz wrote:
> Do you have a good reason for wanting to use XHTML?
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
One argument the author ignores is validation. XHTML validation is
stricter than HTML validation, which means that you can validate your code
against an XHTML validator to ensure better markup. I agree with many of
his points, though. I just don't agree that XHTML is pointless.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:17:46 -0700, Fred Mertz wrote:

> What do you recommend? WHEN would it make sense, if ever, to migrate to
> anything other than HTML 4.01?
As i said in another message, XHTML is basically a subset of HTML. Nothing
is stopping you from writing code that conforms to the XHTML subset with an
HTML doctype.
Thank you Erik for all of your helpful responses.