Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
When made my first website I used MS Publisher. Although I learned later that
resulting HTML was mucky and bloated, it taught me the fundementals.
My next pc came with MS Frontpage and although it produced quite nice webpages,
provider at that time did not support FP extensions.
My site was criticised by the purists on alt.html, so I abandoned FP for a time
produced my site using various other editors, each time validating every page
with W3C.
Although it uses frames a lot and tables extensively I have not changed it for a
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells
Can you?
Jim S

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I personally don't care what you use ... provided I can get through your
site with the browser I like. That'd be the one thing I'd be a little
leery of w/regard to FP: creating pages that work in IE (possibly
specific versions of IE) only.

For myself, that'd be reason to not use the tool, or to learn to use it
in a way that does not create that limitation. (My understanding is that
the latter is possible.)


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Jim Scott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:



Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

On 1 Oct 2006 10:15:34 -0700, Dan wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

At first glance it looks a 'bit' like what I have been doing only more-so.
Jim S
         Tyneside UK

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Dan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That is a very interesting article about WYSIWYG editors, and I hope to
study it more closely.  I am a newbie to HTML and web page creation,
but I do happen to have FP 2003.  Like the original poster, I was
wondering why anyone would want to learn HTML when programs like FP and
Dreamweaver exist.  However, Dan's article does help to clarify why
learning HTML might be very helpful.  Thanks.

I remember a while back creating a web page in MS Word XP just for
practice.  It was not a complicated web page at all, but when I looked
at the source code actually created by MS Word, I could not believe how
complex and how extensive it was.  HTML coding would have been very
straight forward and not nearly as complex. I was wondering at the time
whether that complexity was a good or necessary thing.

One of the advantages of FP 2003 for HTML lovers is that the program
can simply function as a very good HTML editor, without adding FP's
smoke and mirrors,  if the writer wants that.  You can also use FP's
special tools for web site creation, and still tinker with the HTML
source code behind the scene (although I am not anywhere near
proficient to do much tinkering with the more complex code yet).

David F.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, it's not necessary at all.  The only thing that is needed is good
markup and content.  Presentation should be left to an external
stylesheet, as should client side scripting.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You see, if you separate content from presentation, there is no complex
code, just straight forward markup.  Keeping the markup simple usually
means the CSS can be pretty simple as well.  All that makes client side
scripting easier to do, and the lot easier to change/debug later on.

For example, having to change the text to the right of an input box to a
different background color on all forms on a large site:

<form method="post" action="">
<fieldset><legend>Fill out the form</legend>
<label for="name" id="name1">Name: </label> <input type="text"
name="name" id="name"><br>
<label for="email" id="email1">Email: </label> <input type="text"
name="email" id="email"><br>
<input type="submit" value="submit" class="submit">
Style sheet: ----
label {text-align:right; float:right; width:7em; background-color:
#c0c0c0; color:#fff}
form br
input.input {text-align:center; background-color:#fff; color:#000}

vs no stylesheet:
<form method="post" action="">
<table summary="form">
<td colspan="2">Fill out the form</td>
<td align="right" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"><font color="#ffffff">Name:</font>
</td><td class="input"><input type="text" name="name"></td>
<td align="right" bgcolor="#c0c0c0"><font color="#ffffff">Email:</font>
</td><td class="input"><input type="text" name="email"></td>
<td colspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff"><font color="#000000">
<input type="submit" value="submit"></font></td>

Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Jim Scott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

FRONTPAGE REALLY F**KS UP YOUR HTML! FrontPage is notorious for this.
FrontPage uses a tags that can only be used by Internet Explorer, which
messes up the web site for viewers who have the brains to use other
browsers, such as Mozilla, Safari, Firefox, Opera. FP also likes to use
stupid document formatting that makes code buggy and hard to read.

FrontPage Extensions
FrontPage uses little "programs" called "FrontPage Extensions" with the
idea of not having to use a server side language for functions. This
seems like a good idea because you don't have to use a server side
language such as ASP, PHP, or SSI. FrontPage Extensions have a habit of
screwing up and being terribly inefficient.

Because the frontpage extensions cause security issues.

The web components are non-web-standard, quirky to debug, and even
harder to convert over to a different editor such as Dreamweaver.

FrontPage was purposely designed to only work hassle-free ONLY with
Microsoft Web Servers. A whole series of artificial stumbling blocks
have been written into the program to make it less compatable with
non-Microsoft products.

Do a search on the web, there are many reasons NOT to use FrontPage.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

jim@jimscot.Xplus.net says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Your site appears to work in Opera9.02, which is the acid test as far as
I am concerned.
For what you are doing, FP is perfectly fine, as it is for ANY personal
(non-commercial) site. If you don't want to learn HTML, but do want to
show your pictures to others, and you have FP, why not use it?
(There are other, free, wysiwyg HTML proggies that are arguably better
than FP. Go to http://www.nvu.com for one of them.)

Me - I wouldn't use FP or frames.  I'd rather eat worms.

http://graspages.cjb.cc/test/ shows one way to do your galleries without
frames or tables.
http://graspages.cjb.cc/rant/ takes you to rants about FP and frames.

oh - and nice pics, by the way.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Joe wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I was told to use NVU in an introductory computer class, and I thought
it was aweful. I would rather use notepad than nvu.


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

petermlambert@gmail.com says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it
So would I, Peter, so would I. Nvu puts less crap in your files than FP
does, though.
 What I actually use is Notepad++, which has syntax highlighting and
lots of features, but I realise that it's not going to be everyone's top

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Jim Scott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I, personally, have no problem with FP, and have said so elsewhere. In
fact, I added a page to my site because of all the negativity(sp)
produced by some of the posters on this site. (See
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/ofp2o_auth_artlet_webelitistsandrookies.shtml .)

I'm glad to see that others on alt.html don't really have problems with
WYSIWYG editors, as long as you are aware of the items that can get
added into the HTML code that you don't need. FP is my "editor of
choice", though there ARE problems with it. Again, if you know what to
watch for, you can skip it.

You MUST remember, that the "bells and whistles" are FP Extensions, and
not everyone or every browser can (or WANT to) deal with them. I also
don't agree that you cannot use FP if you are writing a "professional"
site. You cannot do some of the things in the site without adding some
type of scripting, or actually editing the HTML, but FP can be used to
give you basics. You MUST be willing to actually look at, learn and
edit the HTML, directly (Source mode in FP), or even in a text editor
if FP refuses to do it, but there are literally THOUSANDS of sites out
there where you can find what you need/want to do.

If you're comfortable with FP, and don't use their extensions (that
goes for almost ANY WYSIWYG), then there should be no problem, even
from the "standards" bearers. ;-)

BigDaddyBS (Bill S.)

PS: If you have constructive comments about the page I wrote, let me

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

On 2 Oct 2006 01:38:28 -0700, bigdaddybs wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/ofp2o_auth_artlet_webelitistsandrookies.shtml .)

Careful the last .) mucks up the link

Jim S
         Tyneside UK

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

On 2 Oct 2006 01:38:28 -0700, bigdaddybs wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Thanks Bill, but it was the extensions that concern me and why they are so
'evil'. :o)
Jim S
         Tyneside UK

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

bigdaddybs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/ofp2o_auth_artlet_webelitistsandrookies.shtml .)

That page comes out as a horrendous mess in my browser (Mozilla
SeaMonkey), with pieces of the page overlapping others, and some of the
text going off the right edge of the screen so I can't read it (there's
no horizontal scroll bar).  While the HTML validates, the CSS gives
some errors and warnings.


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Dan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Really.  Using SeaMonkey on a 1280 x 1024 screen I still had to scroll
horizontally with the browser maximized and no sidebar showing.  Screen
capture at:  http://edmullen.net/temp/cap1.jpg

Ed Mullen
How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink?

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

On 2006-10-02, Dan wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

   In my browser (FF there is a scroll bar, but even with it
   moved all the way to the right, some of the text is still off the

   I think he has provided more ammunition for the anti-FP forces.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

   Chris F.A. Johnson                      <http://cfaj.freeshell.org
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Uh... That had nothing to do with FrontPage. That has more to do with
my (mis)understanding of div widths. Therefore, it is in the CSS, and
has NOTHING to do with my use of FP! It DOES however, point to the fact
that I didn't really test well in FF (the only other browser I
currently have access to.) For that I apologize.

I currently use 100% on multiple divs, and, apparently, this works in
IE6 Quirks mode (I DO state I used transitional, and why.) However,
since it IS CSS, can anyone tell me which div (outer or inner or both)
should be defined differently and how? My full page div (container) is
defined as 100% wide, and a number of internal divs are defined at 100%
wide (because they are to take up the width allowed by the container.)
Obviously at least one of those is wrong... Instead of trying to come
up with why FP is bad (especially when it wasn't to blame for the
problem), I'm sure you have run up against this before, somewhere...
How 'bout a clue?

As for the "overlapping", it is the bottom of page linkbar. I noticed
that in FF, but hadn't looked after other changes. (Sorry.) I put the
linkbar and copyright in a page-bottom div. It's defined at 100%, too.
Why would the copyright stay where it belongs, and the linkbar not?

I'm VERY loathe to ask, because then someone, I'm sure, will complain
about my HTML or CSS, but, to fix the problem, I need answers.

And you can't expect me to believe that you, who are so standards
compliant, do NOT have to "fix" things to work in
non-standards-compliant browsers. If you are professional, which I
believe at least many of you are, you would HAVE to. That also means
you have copies of these other browsers around. So, if you were
interested in the article, rather than trying to find things wrong with
my HTML or CSS (I DID "buck the trend" of complaining about FP), you
COULD read it.

Oh... And the statement "While the HTML validates, the CSS gives some
errors and warnings.", is explained on each and every page (see the
bottom), where it states: "NOTE: All CSS validates except the "New
Window Buttons" - Their CSS includes  some invalid code (ie: hacks)
and warnings for using transparent backgrounds when color foregrounds
defined." Those hacks are the ONLY things that don't validate in my CSS
(underscore hacks). I'm working on another idea for those
pseudo-buttons. As for the warnings about the background colors, can
you explain why anything but "transparent" would be needed? And why
it's necessary at all?

Thanks, in advance, for any HELP. Believe it or not, I really do
appreciate it.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage? >> drifting OT to CSS

Hello Bill

bigdaddybs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

When you say, "works in Quirks mode," do you mean "operates" in quirks
mode, or "functions" in quirks mode? Because "operates," I would
believe. But "functions" is misleading, because what do you mean by
"works?" You don't know *what* you're going to get with a different box
model (and you're setting margins and padding all over the place).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I missed seeing your rationale for this. Is your reasoning that these
pages are so ancient and numerous, you haven't gone STRICT yet?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A clue or two is all I can offer you because (1) I'm no expert, not
nearly, and (2) your CSS is so convoluted I don't know what all's going
on. Fortunately I can delete vast chunks of it in the Edit CSS function
of FF Web Developer extension, and localize some likely suspects. YOU
will have to check and test and verify the usefulness of these clues.

I notice:
#full-page { position:absolute; top:10px; left:5px; width: 100%; }

If I get rid of the width:100%, the horizontal scroll bar vanishes.
Further, I notice no other effects. I suspect therefore, you don't need
this at all. Or maybe 90% or something would be better.

But just because the scroll bar is gone doesn't mean that the text is
visible; it's still hanging off the right side of the viewport. So look:

#main-page {
    margin-left: 130px;
    padding: 5px;
    width: 100%;
    background-color: #f0fff0;

Here, you're saying your want the content to be as wide as the viewport
(or wait, I think I mean _containing block_, but in your case I think
it's pretty much the same). But you've also said to start the 100%-wide
block to start 130 pixels to the right (give or take the 5). So it's no
surprise that the right edge is about 130 pixels off to the right.

You might want to adjust the width and/or margin values accordingly.

I am almost certainly overlooking something. With your opaque CSS and my
lack of experience, there's bound to be something else you ought to look
at too. But at the rates I'm charging you, maybe this is good enough. ;-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, I'm not the guy to point out all the bad things in either part,
but in summary, I can't easily read and understand your code. Maybe
*you* know what .hbbqrff, .hbbqrffw, and #wntbl ol ol ol all mean, but I
certainly can't tell what styles are cascading and inheriting on your
page. I'm sure both your HTML and CSS could be much simpler, you'd then
have fewer problems with it, and whatever problems you did have would be
quicker to understand and solve.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ohh! Ohh! Pick me! I *know* this one! er, I think...
Suppose I have set my browser to use a default black background (for
whatever reason), and your site specifies dark green text, and no (i.e.,
your "transparent") background. I see: darkness. A textless muddle of
mud. And as goofy as this example sounds, it's simply that if you're
going to commandeer the foreground (or bg) color, you'd better specify
the background (or fg) color, too. It's so important (and so often
forgotten) that the W3C includes it in the validation.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

My pleasure. Hope it helps.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage? >> drifting OT to CSS

John Hosking wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

First off, I apologize for going OT (Why shouldn't I use FP?), however,
as you can see it is the fault of the writer, and not FP, and I thought
this was something that could help others who will run into the same
situation (and you know there WILL be others.)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Works = displays correctly. Right or wrong, it does.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Um... Not really. The thing was when I started redesigning the site, I
didn't even think about it, to be honest. I used the same mode I had
used for the old version. (Another mistake, I know.) Now, with 150+
pages set that way in the redesign, I'm afraid to try STRICT.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thanks for ANY insight other than "This page sucks!"

Originally, I was trying to modify the three-column layout from A List
Apart's article using the modification the original author made at
http://www.infocraft.com/articles/the_case_of_the_disappearing_column /.
(That setup is for a 3-column page, while mine was to be only two.)
After most of the pages were complete, when I had problems printing, I
asked for possible reasons. From alt.www.webmaster, it was recommended
I change it as follows:

   I would recoomend re-naming and re-planning these divs along the
line of:
       <div id="container">
               <div id="left-column">  </div> (floated left)
               <div id="right-column"> (margin-left = width of left
column + guttter)
                       <div id="header">       </div>
                       <div id="content">      </div>
which, while not helping my printing problem, did make the layout a
little more logical, in my mind. (Sorry... was a programmer for 25

The basic page "layout" (sorry if that's the wrong term) using my div
names is:
Body                       | Body
    full-page                   |     body division wrapper
(corresponds to "container")
        main-page            |         "right frame" division wrapper
(corresponds to "right-column")
            page-top           |             banner +
            page-content        |             actual content
            page-bottom      |             bottom linkbar +
        full-sidebar            |         sidebar wrapper ("left
frame") (corresponds to "left-column")
            sidebar-top       |             decoration + nav buttons
            sidebar-middle  |             (currently,
"transparent"/blank - just for spacing)
            sidebar-bottom  |             buttons for "used on site"

(I use the term "frame" because a long time ago, I had used frames,
hated it, and revised it. Also, almost everything I've read says to put
the navigation (sidebar) AFTER the content for various reasons, so
that's what I've done for years. I also tend to format my HTML to be
readable about what is in what div, paragraph, etc. While I may have
missed a few, to me, this is not that "convolulted" and I don't
understand why others think so.)

So, because of the number of screens and resolutions out there in
"internet-land", and the number of browsers and how they handle the
"box model", preferably without changing the HTML (would like to handle
it in the CSS), how should the main-page div be defined to keep the
writing within those browsers that ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

To make the classes more "generic" and easier to enter, I used
   hbbqrffw = Heavy Border, Blockquote Replacement, Fixed Font, White
   hbbqrly  = Heavy Border, Blockquote Replacement, (normal font),
Light Yellow (bg)
   bfp7 = Bold, Fine Print, .7em
I did not use tables for layout, except for tabular content, and did
not use blockquotes at all, instead creating classes for "blockquote
replacement", some with colored background, some without. Again, the
names are ... "logical" to me, and I didn't think they'd be that hard
to decipher. (Sorry, again.) I am the only one who edits this website,
so, except for asking for help... :-} And the majority of the pages use
the above "layout".)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ok... I understand. Again, these don't preclude validation, they are
"warnings". I will see about changing MOST of them, however, the idea
of setting a font-color is to set that color on any background on your
site. I have a VERY large CSS as it is (some because I was learning and
used the cascading properties within an external CSS, but most needed,
and some are comments), and I've already been "complained at" because
of it's size. If I have to handle every different foreground color on
every different background...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

John, again, Thank you. I hope my explanations and further questions
make sense.

BigDaddyBS (Bill)

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage? >> drifting OT to CSS

bigdaddybs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, it took me some time, but I think I found the answer to the
overflowing problem in Firefox while it looked alright in IE6 (don't
complain!): My original CSS for the main formats above looked like
this, based on my attempting to modify the ALA article, above... And it
worked well in IE6 (had forgotten to check in FF - again, sorry):

  body [basically defines site font - basic size and color - and
background color/image]

  #full-page { position: absolute; top: 10px; left: 5px; /* Container
Position */
    width: 100%;    }

  #main-page { margin-left: 130px; padding: 5px; width: 100%;
background-color: #f0fff0;
        /* BG color for wide layering [removed]    */  }

  #full-sidebar { float: left; position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0;
width: 110px; padding: 5px;
    text-align: center; z-index: -1;    }

  /* These are supposed to make the two columns the same length. In
some browsers, */
  /* there may be a problem in that the full length may appear.     */


  #full-page    { overflow: hidden;    }
  #full-page .column {    padding-bottom: 10010px;
        margin-bottom: -10000px;    }

  /* Define the general divs sectioning the above containers
[main-page] */

  #page-top    { margin: 0; padding: 0 .5em; width: 100%; text-align:
center; }
  #page-content    { margin: 0; padding:   .5em; width: 100%; }
  #page-bottom    { margin: 0; padding:   .5em; width: 100%; text-align:
center;    }

I got into FF and downloaded a number of web-developer tools (figuring
they'd help - and they did), and after a lot of trial and error, had it
working in FF, but then it overflowed in IE (off right of page). More
trial and error, more failure, more getting it working in one and it
failed in the other and vice-versa. I did some searching for a good
2-column format (LS fixed, RS content and fluid) with a container, and
couldn't find any despite hours of searching. I went back to my CSS,
and thought I'd try something. After all my modifications, I was a LOT
leaner than the above, and was playing with the #full-page and
#main-page ids only, dealing with widths.I finally hit upon the

  #full-page { width: 100%; margin: 5px; }

  #main-page { margin-left: 125px; width: 98%; background-color:
        /* BG color for wide layering [removed] */   }

  #full-page > #main-page { width: auto; }

  #full-sidebar { position: absolute; top: 5px; width: 100px;
text-align: center; }

  /* Define the general divs sectioning the above containers    */


  #page-top    { margin: 0; padding: 0 .5em; /* width: 100%; */
text-align: center;    }
  #page-content    { margin: 0; padding:   .5em; /* width: 100%; */         }
  #page-bottom    { margin: 0; padding:   .5em; /* width: 100%; */
text-align: center;    }

I'm still not quite sure WHY I tried the child-selector (#full-page >
#main-page), or why it works (my assumption is that IE does not see it,
or if it does, it does so incorrectly, so ignores it, therefore uses
the 98% width, while FF sees it and uses the "auto" width. Am I

Anyway, I'm including this here for others that may have problems with
this. Since GG (I know... a hated term!) seems to get at least some of
the NGs indexed, maybe it will also become searchable.

If anyone would care to explain why things work now and didn't before
(I'm exhausted from screwing with it!), please do.

Thank you John and Wayne for your comments and suggestions.

Please... Those of you who had problems, see if they still exist...

Again, I point out that this was NOT FP's fault -- didn't change
anything in the HTML of the page(s) of the site at all -- but my lack
of understanding in setting the DIVs correctly in the CSS.) Should work
fine in both IE6 and FF, now. (No... I did NOT test in other
browsers... Don't have them available. :-} )

BigDaddyBS (Bill S)

Site Timeline