Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

[jussij]

Sounds like user error to me...

Lets assume a user writes the some valid HTML in notepad, gives it
to FP only to have FP re-write the HTML and spit it back as some
non standard HTML full of FP extensions.

Sounds like the problem with the tool to me.

The only user error here is he/she is still using FP

Jussi Jumppanen
Author: Zeus for Windows IDE
http://www.zeusedit.com

 

[bigdaddybs]

Lets assume a user writes the some valid HTML in notepad, gives it
to FP only to have FP re-write the HTML and spit it back as some
non standard HTML full of FP extensions.

Sounds like the problem with the tool to me.

The only user error here is he/she is still using FP

Jussi Jumppanen

FrontPage does NOT add or change code unless you ask it to. It may
reformat, if you have not spent any time at all in preferences/options
- one of the options is to leave the HTML alone, or the way it's
entered in the Source Tab and the default is NOT to, which I will
concede is an error you can blame on MS/FP.

The point is, if you don't kinow the capabilities of a product, and
only go by the crap that people allow it to put out, you can't bitch
about ANY editor. From much of what I've heard, here, few people DO
understand that. Any other WYSIWYG editor would do the same, though the
defaults may be set differently..

BigDaddyBS

 

[Andy Dingley]

FrontPage does NOT add or change code unless you ask it to.

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> ?

 

[John Hosking]

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> ?

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No, I wasn't.

You most certainly were. Read what you wrote.

You are demonstrating yourself to be the kind of person who argues by
casting people as "liberals"...

No you are the kind that has no sense of humor. Oh well, your loss.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

VOTE? Hell I campaigned for him!

 

[Travis Newbury]

Lets assume a user writes the some valid HTML in notepad, gives it
to FP only to have FP re-write the HTML and spit it back as some
non standard HTML full of FP extensions.
Sounds like the problem with the tool to me.

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...

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

That's not a test.

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.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

That's not a test.

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.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Politics: The New Racism.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Sure it's a test. It's repeatable, it's verifiable, it answered a
well-defined question with a yes/no answer:

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.

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

 

[dorayme]

Politics: The New Racism.

Joel, really! I love Travis. Some of my best friends are
low-down, no-good, grasping, unfeeling right-wing characters. I
never discriminate against them.

 

[wayne]

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
know.

At 1280 px width, there is a very short horizontal scroll at the bottom
of my screen. When resizing to 800X600 resolution, there is still a
very short scroll bar, but in both cases the text goes off the screen on
the right. Perhaps you should remove "overflow:hidden;" from your
stylesheet.

--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.us
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion.
—Steven Weinberg

 

[wayne]

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?

Yes, are you one of those asshole republicans?

--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.us
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion.
—Steven Weinberg

 

[Andy Dingley]

HOWEVER that was not my original question which was: what harm can it do to
use the non-standard tricks in FP?

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

Is the worst thing that they won't behave
correctly in all browser or is it more serious than that?

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

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yes, are you one of those asshole republicans?

Why do you have to call me an asshole republican? Can't you just say
Republican or conservitive? Why do you feel the need to add "asshole"?
did I ask if you were a goat smelling dirty sanchez loving liberal?
No, I didn't.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Why do you have to call me an asshole republican? Can't you just say
Republican or conservitive? Why do you feel the need to add "asshole"?

You're right, tautology is a terrible waste.

 

[wayne]

Why do you have to call me an asshole republican? Can't you just say
Republican or conservitive? Why do you feel the need to add "asshole"?
did I ask if you were a goat smelling dirty sanchez loving liberal?
No, I didn't.

You're correct of course. However, what does the term "liberal" have to
do with ones disapproval of FP?

My opinion is that you use the term "liberal" in a derogatory manner,
sort of like Russ Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity.

--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.us
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion.
—Steven Weinberg

 

[Travis Newbury]

You're correct of course. However, what does the term "liberal" have to
do with ones disapproval of FP?

When viewed by somone familiar with my posts it has everything to do
with being a liberal. You aparently are not, so you miss-read what I
meant.

My opinion is that you use the term "liberal" in a derogatory manner,
sort of like Russ Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity.

Liberal IS derogatory. And for Rush? News is entertainment businss.
When one understands that it is easier to separate the chaff from the
wheat.