This forum is for technical Q+A - it is NOT for posting unsolicited articles.
- f you have an article on SharePoint Designer 2007 in SharePoint do not post it here. Post it to your blog or to one of the many web sites that accept articles on SharePoint.This forum is not a location for SharePoint Designer 2007 articles and they will be deleted.Instead if you have information that can solve a question posted in the forum, post as a reply in that thread a precis of the solution and then (and only then) give the URL of your blog/article as a source of further information.(Moderator)(Posted so a couple of people stop trying to use this forum as a blog system or as an advertising location for their blogs)
WSS FAQ sites: http://wssv2faq.mindsharp.com and http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com
Total list of WSS 3.0 / MOSS 2007 Books (including foreign language) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/Lists/v3%20WSS%20FAQ/V%20Books.aspx
All Replies
So did you just delete my perfectly legitimate post to a problen that has crippled us for 1 month, because I didnt post a question first and then answer my own question.
I hope not. I hope you dont delete this response either Mr Walsh because if you do I'll have to ask you in advance - WTF are you doing trying to shut me up when I am only interested in posting a solution to a pretty serious problem?
There's no URL to my blog here. What ? are you guys completey paranoid or something?
Heres my post that I think you just deleted.....
NB: This post contains a description of the problem as well as the fix.
On June 16 2009 we applied some security patches to our MOSS Server. On June 18 our SPD Forms developer reported an inability to create new forms. In particular, splitting a custom List Form table would generate the error:We initially had only spurious problems preventing us from modifying or creating new forms in SharePoint. Not all developers were affected. This became progressively worse for the developers who were affected.
It turns out, the server patch was simply a catalyst. After an exhaustive process of elimination we have now pinned down the source of the problem to SharePoint Designer 2007.
In short :
• It seems that the security upgrade patch we applied on 16 June (see below) is incompatible with the original versions of SharePoint Designer 2007.
• However the incompatibility only affects older (pre SP1) versions that are subsequently upgraded to SP2 (including the version offered as part of our current (ie. paid) MSDN Subscription).
• It is unlikely this incompatibility is just a local corruption as the problem appeared simultaneously on different upgraded SP2 versions of SharePoint Designer.
• This problem did not affect a recently downloaded (May 2009) version, and did not affect an original pre-SP1 version.
• We were unable to find any posts about this problem on the internet.Master Page Error The page contains markup that is not valid when attached to a Master Page. Correct the problem in Code View
Note: this is NOT a corruption of the binaries, but a problem introduced by the security patches.
We fixed the error by simply removing the incompatible version of SharePoint Designer and reinstalling the version known to work (ie latest version).
We have applied the following patches to our MOSS Server:
WindowsServer2003-KB969897-x86-ENU.exe
WindowsServer2003-KB968537-x86-ENU.exe
WindowsServer2003-KB961501-x86-ENU.exe
WindowsServer2003-KB970483-x86-ENU.exe
WindowsServer2003-KB970238-x86-ENU.exe
WindowsServer2003-KB969898-x86-ENU.exe
D. Name_1 (aka Anon E. Mouse)- Mike:
I'm hoping that I'm not violating the rules when I post links to my blog. It's not in any way an attempt to drive traffic there (though I do love to see the numbers increase for my own gratification) as I have no advertising or anything. Sometimes it's just easier to post a link than to try to restate the solution. If you'd prefer more of a precis, then I can try to do that instead.
Let me know what you think!
M.
Marc D Anderson - Sympraxis Consulting LLC - Marc D Anderson's Blog - The above post is only sayinga) don't post an information post - that's not what the forums are for.b) don't post a post starting a thread which points at your blog postb is just a way of posting an information post in disguise.Posts answering a question in a thread by referring to an existing blog item are fine. It is preferable if there is some text before the link rather than just "see this" but mainly this is to provide an indication of the answer in the thread and to cut out the spammers.Some people however misuse the "referring to an existing blog item" possibility by seeing a forum question; writing (then) an answer in their blog and then going to the forum to say read my blog for the answer. That is not acceptable. In that case the full answer should come in the thread. Only then should they write a blog containing that answer and for future questions refer to that blog item.Referring to blog items is perfectly correct in normal usage and is of course necessary in order to save time and/or unnecessary copy/pastes.Similarly having a link to your blog in your sig is perfectly acceptable.( I would prefer however not to see sigs of (say) seven lines giving blog; web site; e-mail; twitter; etc. etc. addresses !)Does that cover it,Marc?
WSS FAQ sites: http://wssv2faq.mindsharp.com and http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com
Total list of WSS 3.0 / MOSS 2007 Books (including foreign language) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/Lists/v3%20WSS%20FAQ/V%20Books.aspx - >So did you just delete my perfectly legitimate post to a problen that has crippled us for 1 month, because I didnt post a question first and then answer my own >question.(Ignoring the fact that if I had thought it legitimate I wouldn't have deleted it.)You have since resurrected it as a question followed by an answer in the forum.I spotted that (as I pointed out in my reply there), but left it.That is a perfectly acceptable technique (although I hope it doesn't become all too common).Some (in fact most) of the earlier information posts I have deleted (in other SP forums after which I put up the above post (with variations for the name) up there) were in fact less technical Q+A like and thus virtually completely off-topic. Your post was deleted to avoid encouraging those kinds of people to post "information" posts here.By restricting information posts only to those from Microsoft (and talking to them so that too doesn't become all too common), there's a clear line in the sand. (= Only Microsoft; all clearly stating that fact in the Title).I hope that that makes the reason for deleting your post understandable even if you don't agree with the decision in this particular case.
WSS FAQ sites: http://wssv2faq.mindsharp.com and http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com
Total list of WSS 3.0 / MOSS 2007 Books (including foreign language) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/Lists/v3%20WSS%20FAQ/V%20Books.aspx - Covers it for me, Mike; thanks. In my view the whole point of the forums is to help people solve problems with the technology at hand. Self-promotion shouldn't be the goal (though we all do get some nice little badges and recognition in the right pane if we answer usefully).
I know that being the moderator on a forum like this can be "challenging" and usually thankless, so thanks for herding us cats well.
M.
Marc D Anderson - Sympraxis Consulting LLC - Marc D Anderson's Blog - Just a follow-up to my post attempting to explain my actions to the Original poster.
The original poster, did not like my explanation and went into a long rant about Microsoft.
He said in that post that he would have sent this reply to my e-mail address if he'd had it available and that I could delete the post to the forum after reading it, so I did.
WSS FAQ sites: http://wssv2faq.mindsharp.com and http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com
Total list of WSS 3.0 / MOSS 2007 Books (including foreign language) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/Lists/v3%20WSS%20FAQ/V%20Books.aspx- Edited byMike Walsh MVPMVP, ModeratorWednesday, July 22, 2009 8:33 AMtyping
