Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

[bigdaddybs]

In my browser (FF 1.5.0.7) there is a scroll bar, but even with it
moved all the way to the right, some of the text is still off the
screen.

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

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.
BigDaddyBS

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Only if you do it by not following the standards. Future browsers
will adhere more closely to the standards; a well-made page will
always work.

Right, but we're talking about Frontpage here.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Right, but we're talking about Frontpage here.

which is an editor just like any other...

 

[Andy Dingley]

which is an editor just like any other...

No it isn't. It's a "smart" editor, only it's not very smart.

An editor does what I tell it to. Frontpage changes my content in ways
that it thinks are right, and it's frequently wrong too.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No it isn't. It's a "smart" editor, only it's not very smart.

Smart? It is an editor. It is not "smart" Maybe it's the user?

An editor does what I tell it to. Frontpage changes my content in ways
that it thinks are right, and it's frequently wrong too.

Sounds like user error to me...

 

[Peter]

Interesting how you want to blame an inanimate object for a humans
shortcomings.

Ok, put it this way: The makers of Frontpage designed their program to
f*** up HTML.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Ok, put it this way: The makers of Frontpage designed their program to
f*** up HTML.

Yea, I am sure that is the exact words they used in the planning
meeting... FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other tool when used
by some one that is competent.

All tools are equal? According to that logic, Notepad is no better than
a text editor which ignores every third keypress. Do you really believe
that?

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Yea, I am sure that is the exact words they used in the planning
meeting... FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

People who are competent at something choose tools that make their work
easier, not harder. They may be better at fixing garbage produced by
inferior tools, but their preference will be not to use the inferior
tools in the first place.

A master craftsman may be able to do a better job building cabinetry
with a hand saw than a home hobbyist, but he is also less likely to use
a hand saw at all, preferring to have a table saw, at mitre saw, a
biscuit cutter, a dovetailer, a router, etc.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Ok, put it this way: The makers of Frontpage designed their program to
f*** up HTML.

Were you taking the minutes?

And WTF did they say when they designed(sic) M$ Orifice's version of
HTML(sic) ?!

 

[Travis Newbury]

All tools are equal? According to that logic, Notepad is no better than
a text editor which ignores every third keypress. Do you really believe
that?

Your analogy is flawed.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Your analogy is flawed.

You claimed that no tool is better than any other (if Frontpage is
'no better or worse than any other tool', then all tools are just as
good as Frontpage, and as each other). I stated that if that's true,
then a text editor which ignores every third keystroke -- a tool by any
reasonable definition -- is just as good as Notepad, which is also a
tool. Where's the flawed analogy?

 

[Travis Newbury]

You claimed that no tool is better than any other (if Frontpage is
'no better or worse than any other tool', then all tools are just as
good as Frontpage, and as each other). I stated that if that's true,
then a text editor which ignores every third keystroke -- a tool by any
reasonable definition -- is just as good as Notepad, which is also a
tool. Where's the flawed analogy?

But if the same editor had saber tooth gerbils chewing their way out of
your ass while coding, it would be incentive to use the editor
correctly and your productivity would improve bringing you to a level
of productivity equal to notepad.

 

[Travis Newbury]

People who are competent at something choose tools that make their work
easier, not harder.
They may be better at fixing garbage produced by
inferior tools, but their preference will be not to use the inferior
tools in the first place.

You are starting your argument with the assumption that FP is an
inferior tool, then using that assumption to prove your point that it
is an inferior tool.

Are you a liberal?

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

You are starting your argument with the assumption that FP is an
inferior tool, then using that assumption to prove your point that it
is an inferior tool.

Your claim wasn't that Frontpage was non-inferior, it was that _no_
editor is inferior -- that in the right hands, brucie's dirt and pointy
stick is just as good as vim or Notepad or Frontpage. Harlan Messinger's
response was a perfectly valid.

Are you a liberal?

'Everything's as good as everything else. Better doesn't exist.' Are you
a hippie?

 

[Harlan Messinger]

You are starting your argument with the assumption that FP is an
inferior tool, then using that assumption to prove your point that it
is an inferior tool.

No, I wasn't.

Are you a liberal?

You are demonstrating yourself to be the kind of person who argues by
casting people as "liberals" whether it has any relevance to the
discussion or not. <plonk>

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Yea, I am sure that is the exact words they used in the planning
meeting... FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

There is a corollary to the old saying that "a poor workman blames
his tools", and that is, "a good workman uses good tools".

FrontPage is demonstrably not a good tool.

 

[dorayme]

Smart? It is an editor. It is not "smart" Maybe it's the user?

AD has questioned the smartness himself in making his perfectly
understandable point. What are you adding except pure unreasoned
opposition?

 

[dorayme]

FrontPage is a tool, no better or worse than any other
tool when used by some one that is competent.

What is the test of competent? That he answers yes to some damn
fool question like "if you use all these 5 million tools very
very very carefully with full knowledge of all their limitations,
will you find any of them any better or worse than any others?"

 

[dorayme]

You are starting your argument with the assumption that FP is an
inferior tool, then using that assumption to prove your point that it
is an inferior tool.

Are you a liberal?

I am really pleased you brought this factor in as I had to
restrain myself earlier from expressing a thought that your logic
and obfuscation fitted perfectly with the Republican Right and
the mind set that would vote for Bush.