Why shouldn't I use Frontpage? - Page 3

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

Threaded View

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

jim@jimXscott.co.uk says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

umm, sorry you didn't consider mine a sensible reply.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 Never mind. If "not behaving correctly in all browsers" does not seem
like a serious problem to you, by all means use them.  It's your site
after all.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Frontpage has compatibility settings anyway.

The biggest issue might be bloated HTML which will cause you issues
later if you wish to switch to a new platform which does not run
frontpage. Your frontpage generated HTML will be almost unreadable and
about 20 times bigger than it should be.

Fine for prototyping but a manual cleanup is a good idea.


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Jim S wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you making a web site, or a M$oft site ?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's not a question of "correctly" it's a question of "fail to work at

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

bigdaddybs wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which version?  _Every_ version of FP I've suffered with has done this,
although I'm told that later versions are much less bad at it. What
about width and height attributes on an <img> ?

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Andy Dingley wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

FP 2002 (so, not the latest version) does/did this. *Sometimes* And
sometimes adds both w & h, sometimes just one. It makes me crazy to
neatly code and CSS-style my images, save the page (even in code view),
then the next time I look in code view (or peek in Notepad) I see the
width attributes set again.

As far as changing code willy-nilly, earlier versions of FP were much
worse. It's probably the main factor or encouragement for me to learn
HTML's niceties. FP 98 was very special. It is getting better now.


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

jussij@zeusedit.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I tested your theory out.  I went to w3.org and saved their (flawlessly
validating) page on my desk top.  I then opened it using FP, made a few
changes, to the text, then saved it.  MIRACULUSLY when I validated the
page again it STILL had no errors.  FP did not change a single line of
the code on its own.

So it sound more like like a user problem to me...

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Travis Newbury wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's not a test.

* It only tested one page, which might not include some of the areas
where FP was known to change code.

* It only tested that the changed page still validated. FP can make
changes that whilst still valid are also unwanted.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Andy Dingley wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is all the testing I am about to waste my time on over this retarded
argument...  If you (or anyone else) would like to supply an html page
that magically changes when opened and saved with FP then please do.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean "That's not a test that satisfies my prejudices"?

Sure it's a test. It's repeatable, it's verifiable, it answered a
well-defined question with a yes/no answer: can one edit a valid (and I
believe in this case, non-trivial) web page in FP and have the result be
valid HTML. The answer is yes.

If FP had instead spewed out invalid HTML, I'm quite sure you wouldn't
have objected to the method used to test the theory: right?

It's not an exhaustive test, but if you do any reading outside these
news groups you might notice that most experiments _aren't_. That
doesn't mean "They're not experiments". This particular experiment
doesn't _prove_ FP always preserves valid HTML either, but sadly such
proof may be beyond our grasp, at least as a practical matter.

But it would take _only one_ test to prove that FP sometimes twists
valid into invalid markup. Feel free to demonstrate it.


Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Joel Shepherd wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It didn't answer the question being asked though. The question wasn't,
"Does there exist one valid page which retains validity after FP ?" it
was "Does FP ever change pages?"  Although you carefully post a valid
re-hash of Karl Popper, it still doesn't fix FP. This test is just too
narrow in scope to be a valid comparison for the reasonable purposes of
informal dialogue. It's _certainly_ too narrow to be a valid test for a
magazine article review.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Send me a copy of current FP and I'd be interested enough to examine
it. I'm not interested  enough to buy one though.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Jim Scott wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wrong question. Don't ask "What's the easiest editor to use?", ask
instead "What do I want to make?" and then "How can I best make what I
want to make?"

What _do_ you want to make?   HTML-slurry, or something decent?  It's
your call - neither is ever wrong  (the web is a broad church, and long
may it remain so). However there are advantages to doing it right.

If you don't care, then use whichever editor is easiest and prettiest,
and ignore the comments about its output. You've already decided that
for your site then it just isn't going to matter  (MySpace is an
indication that you can build a very big and popular site this way).

If you do care, then immediately rule out any and all editors that
aren't co-operative. There's no point in trying to meet standards, then
using a tool that fights you all the way. This rules out most known M$
offerings. It shouldn't need to, but practical measurement suggest M$
just don't care about standards as a design goal. We're hardly short of
alternatives either.

FP Extensions are also poorly thought out, unreliable and a damn
nuisance on a big, multi-developer or long-term site. You'd be far
better served by rsync, or even a decent ftp program and good bandwidth
(obliterate the lot with vast duplicated copies from your dev server
that are at least simple to trigger).

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Hi Scott,

in FP you will seem to be controlled by its interface.

I personlly use Dreamweaver.  It gives me lots of freedom and clear
errorless W3C standard html codings.



Really Nice graphics for free

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

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Jim Scott a écrit :
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I personally recommend you use KompoZer 0.77 with HandCoder 0.3.4. Along
with KompoZer's built-in "Markup cleaner" feature, this is, believe it
or not, what I use to upgrade very messy outdated webpages. It's a
powerful combo of software tools.

KompoZer 0.77:
http://www.kompozer.net /

HandCoder 0.3.4:
http://fabiwan.kenobi.free.fr/HandCoder /

remove blah to email me

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I had a try at Kompozer, but it suffers from the same problem as NVU in
that you are limited to the page and one subfolder.

Re: Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
heaps of
bells and

Dear Jim,
First I want to congratulate you on asking a very good question and getting
all that interest from all those replys.

FP2002 (which is what I own and can speak about with some experience) can be
setup to generate code that is either very generic or quite specific to IE.
It can also be setup to not allow you to use FrontPage extensions.  It will
most likely generate more html/asp code that you would if your hand coding
it.  But it provides a visual interface for generating your html code,
tables etc.  So it allows you to quickly approximate what your trying to
create before you tweak it at the html code level.

If you use CSS when applying the "themes" that FP makes available the code
will be much cleaner and more portable between servers.

The Microsoft Office Suite generates extermely bloated and idosyncratic html
code.  Furthermore, to use the results really well in a Microsoft LAN
environment you have to add-on an MS Office server extension.

The FrontPage Server Extensions reduce the amount of code you have to find
and patch into your pages and/or write.  However, you can find equivalents
(mostly) for every FPSE application already written in ASP, Php and/or Perl.
I can't address the security issues for FPSE under latest releases of IIS
and Windows 2003 server.

If you create a website that uses FPSE you automatically limit its
portablity.  If you create a website using Php and/or Perl you can usually
migrate across both Windows and Linux/Unix webservers without much

There is supposed to be a version of FPSE for Unix/Linux.

FP and for that matter Dreamweaver are WYSIWYG html editors that trade time
for speed.  You spend less time and generate more code, quickly.  Neither FP
or DW will generate code that is as tight as a good html programmer does.
But a good html programmer is rarer and more expensive than a business
professional using FP and knowing a little bit about html.

Summary:  If you need a portable Website you need to tell FP to generate
Javascript, and not use any other specific to IE coding.

You should use CSS where ever you can to consolidate formating code into a
single external .CSS page/file.  If you want to use FP themes have them
saved/created as CSS.  Study html code and especially review how to make
tables in html.  FP sometimes screwup the code for tables.  Its easier to
fix the code than get FP to fix it.

If you don't care about the size of the pages (the smaller pages load faster
to the end-user) then you can use FP themes without applying them using CSS.

If you don't care about website portability you can use FPSE extensions.
Microsoft has links to FPSE hosts so you should never run out of hosts.

If you don't care if anyone but IE users can read you websites you can leave
FP's code creation on its defaults.

Tom Miller (http://bccs.chatnfiles.com )

Site Timeline