interesting observation, Ramil.

I'd say that MS is euphemizing the word "traditional" in the first instance, the translation being 'poorly designed'.
I think this is applicable to the second instance too, though at least there there *may* be some argument that original ASP was around for some time and was the only one and so might be considered "traditional". I would have thought that "original" would have been the better word for the second instance, but I guess those MS marketeers really want to establish the word "traditional" in various contexts so that the reader/hearer will self-apply their own definition, any of which is probably better 'poorly designed'.

Enjoy Friday!

>Hi all,
>
>Sort of off-topic here. There is an article in Pinnacle's Hardcore VS.Net re: What's new in ASP.Net Whidbey?, that discusses Precompilation stating that: Traditional ASP.Net pages... I just attended one of MS Webcast this week about ASP.Net something and the speaker noted something about Traditional ASP... Its Friday and I was just wondering what is scoped when you refer to something as traditional even though its not really gotten mainstream yet.