Which version of FrontPage makes a code which validates

J

jnm

I am in the process of choosing among a FrontPage upgrade or to go to a new
WEB development suite.



So far I have been using MS FrontPage 2000 which is included in MS
Office2000 with all available updates installed.



I have problems with validation of my code developed with FP2000. I have
tried the following doc types:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0
Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

and

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
Transitional//EN"

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">


I get a lot of failures created by FP.



Which version of FrontPage supports one of the above declarations? I would
prefer DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional as I believe it is the right choice.



Thanks

Jorgen
 
R

Ronx

If you avoid themes, FrontPage navigation components, Wizards of any
description then FP2003 is the best choice, probably. If you use any of the
above, then the code will never validate.

The HTML produced may still require some tweaking.
 
S

Stefan B Rusynko

All versions of FP support valid html
- only user add non-valid html code (by using some of the FP design bots or browser specific code)

FP 2003 supports reformatting of code to XHTML
- as long as you don't use any design time tools that are not a part of the W3C guidelines (and they are just that)

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


|I am in the process of choosing among a FrontPage upgrade or to go to a new
| WEB development suite.
|
|
|
| So far I have been using MS FrontPage 2000 which is included in MS
| Office2000 with all available updates installed.
|
|
|
| I have problems with validation of my code developed with FP2000. I have
| tried the following doc types:
|
| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0
| Transitional//EN"
| "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
|
| and
|
| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
| Transitional//EN"
|
| "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
|
|
| I get a lot of failures created by FP.
|
|
|
| Which version of FrontPage supports one of the above declarations? I would
| prefer DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional as I believe it is the right choice.
|
|
|
| Thanks
|
| Jorgen
|
|
|
|
 
J

jnm

Ron wrote:

If you avoid themes, FrontPage navigation components, Wizards of any
description then FP2003 is the best choice, probably. If you use any of the
above, then the code will never validate.



Stefan wrote:

All versions of FP support valid html
- only user add non-valid html code (by using some of the FP design bots or
browser specific code)
FP 2003 supports reformatting of code to XHTML
- as long as you don't use any design time tools that are not a part of the
W3C guidelines (and they are just that)



Jorgen comments:

I guess that I might continue with my FP2000 and try to avoid "themes,
FrontPage navigation components, Wizards of any description" because now we
are back to basic.



However I have bought AllWebMenus to create and manage my navigation bars.
This program generates a navigation code, which is linked into the Common
Border, Bottom created by FrontPage.



I have created a test page located at www.mqmanagement.dk with doc type:



<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">



The code <meta name="Microsoft Border" content="b, default"> is the control
for the navigation, but it won't validate. If I modify the code to <meta
name="Microsoft_Border" content="b, default" /> it validates, but the code
don't work.



Does that mean the Common Border facility is junk???



Jorgen
 
R

Ronx

Shared borders work in all browsers - but will not validate to XHTML. You
can use FrontPage include files, and include the bottom border (located at
_borders/bottom.htm), the include can be designed to validate correctly.
But you may have to maintain at least one page that uses a bottom border, or
FP may delete the existing file. (It has not done that for me, but your
mileage may vary).
 
J

jnm

Hi Ron



Thanks for the comments.

I do still have a problem with the AllWebMenus regarding validation. I
expect to hear from their costumer support shortly.

Depending on their reply I will try out your idea with the SSI of the bottom
border file.



Regards

Jorgen
 
R

Ronx

FrontPage includes are not SSI, though SSI could be used. Server Side
Includes will require that all links be absolute or root relative, and
FrontPage design/normal view will not display SSI segments of pages.
FrontPage includes do not have these restrictions.
 
D

Dennis D.

The problem is really with the validators, and with the idea of validation.
The WC3 has offered standards for specific languages. It is the standards
that are important.
Web pages, on the other hand, are not language specific in most cases. They
are not static in most cases. The purpose of the web page is to utilize the
network architecture.

The network offers more than any single language can cover, so the idea of
using a validation machine is really less than desirable. If a validation
engine could pick out a specific language from the web page, then it might
be usable for that language. Further, stringing several of these types of
engines together might yield an even more useful product. That type of error
checking is included to a limited degree in the versions of FrontPage,
albiet a small degree, it is significant among authoring tools. Add to that
the intelligent coding features, and you have a fairly useful, less
complicated, and less expensive suite of tools.

The real task in writing for the web is in knowing the technologies to a
fault. You then use each module for the utility it offers. The scope of my
work, and I am a weekend coder, has been an attempt to solidify a collection
of tools into a working environment that makes sense to me. I want to be
able to plant myself in it, and drive it without distraction toward the
intended results. The requirement is that I know the technologies. The
authoring tools are there to help with the writing tasks, more or less to
keep me from getting carpal tunnel syndrome from having to type so much.
FrontPage helps with that simply because it reduces the number of coding
tools, including references, that must be wired into the environment.

One thing I have noticed is that even with the tools the job is difficult.
The more I know the less difficult it is. Finally, the more time I spend
coding and checking the initial pages and templates, the less time it takes
to check when changes are made. It is sort of like cleaning. A little bit
every day is better than procrastination.

Hope I got most of this right. I'm an amateur.

Dennis D.,
http://www.dennisys.com/
 
M

Murray

Which version of FrontPage supports one of the above declarations? I
They all do. You as the operator, though, are the one who determines the
final form of your code.

HTML 4.01 is good enough unless you have a need to use XHTML.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

php 4
DocType 1
Typing and pasting HTML - Problems 2
Force Character Encoding 9
OLExpress image trouble 2
frontpage xhtml standards compliance 6
Doc Type in FrontPage Webs 1
Website display varies with the following browser versions... 4

Top