Frontpage vs. Dreamweaver

Merry Christmas this fine Christmas Eve morning.

I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm "assuming" that
most
everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and logic??

Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4. In the
newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant? Do I need to worry
about that with FrontPage 2000?

I know, it's 4:30 in the morning (on Christmas Eve/Morning no less!). I've
become obsessed with this stuff.

Ally

:) Thanks Murray.

Right now I am in the "notepad" stage. Just trying to relearn my html,
and
now xhtml, css and eventually javascript, PHP and ASP. With all of the new
standards, I'm afraid to use FP OR DW lol. Afraid it will add stuff I don't
want for the DTD I am using, etc....

Ally

"Murray R. Summers" <murray@hahagreat-web-sights.com> wrote in
message
news:%23J2IVA2JHHA.1744@ns1.xroubaix.com...
> > I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm
"assuming" that
> > most
> > everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and
logic??
>
> FrontPage's entire approach is geared to new users, and as a result, there
> are lots of wizards and 'smoke and mirrors' in its operation.  In fact, FP
> is simply an HTML authoring system and can be used to build valid sites
with
> no bloat, just the same way DW can.  But the UI of FP is much more in your
> face, the good stuff is more or less buried, and it's much more tedious to
> do that, than with DW.  But remember, it's the operator not the program
that
> makes the difference.  In that regard, FP has gotten a 'bum rap'....
>
> This forum has its roots in the DW world, hence the difference, I suppose.
>
> > Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4.
In
> > the
> > newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant?
>
> No.
>
> > Do I need to worry
> > about that with FrontPage 2000?
>
> Yes.  But FP is a dead end, you know?  Its successor, Expression Web, is
> VERY W3 compliant, and completely lacking the intrusive front end of FP.
You
> can download a 60-day trial of it now, and you should.  It's a very nice
> program.
>
> Presently, it only supports .Net, but I am led to believe that it will
> acquire PHP support over time.  Also, remember that this is v1, and lacks
> some things that you may find glaring omissions - like, it will not save
> your FTP info, and it has no good way to use root relative links, and it's
a
> bit flaky with SSI....
>
> -- 
> Murray
>              <<(spam is no laughing matter! )>>
> <<(to reply off-line, look at the email address - think about
it!)>>
>
>
>
> "Ally" <foxtrotta@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bMMmJ70JHHA.1132@ns1.xroubaix.com...
> > Merry Christmas this fine Christmas Eve morning.
> >
> > I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm
"assuming" that
> > most
> > everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and
logic??
> >
> > Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4.
In
> > the
> > newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant? Do I need to
worry
> > about that with FrontPage 2000?
> >
> > I know, it's 4:30 in the morning (on Christmas Eve/Morning no less!).
I've
> > become obsessed with this stuff.
> >
> > Ally
> >
> >
>
>

Ally wrote:
> :) Thanks Murray.
> 
> Right now I am in the "notepad" stage. Just trying to relearn my
html, and
> now xhtml, css and eventually javascript, PHP and ASP. With all of the new
> standards, I'm afraid to use FP OR DW lol. Afraid it will add stuff I
don't
> want for the DTD I am using, etc....
> 
> Ally
> 
> "Murray R. Summers" <murray@hahagreat-web-sights.com> wrote
in message
> news:%23J2IVA2JHHA.1744@ns1.xroubaix.com...
>>> I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm
"assuming" that
>>> most
>>> everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and
logic??
>> FrontPage's entire approach is geared to new users, and as a result,
there
>> are lots of wizards and 'smoke and mirrors' in its operation.  In fact,
FP
>> is simply an HTML authoring system and can be used to build valid
sites
> with
>> no bloat, just the same way DW can.  But the UI of FP is much more in
your
>> face, the good stuff is more or less buried, and it's much more tedious
to
>> do that, than with DW.  But remember, it's the operator not the
program
> that
>> makes the difference.  In that regard, FP has gotten a 'bum rap'....
>>
>> This forum has its roots in the DW world, hence the difference, I
suppose.
>>
>>> Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version
4. In
>>> the
>>> newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant?
>> No.
>>
>>> Do I need to worry
>>> about that with FrontPage 2000?
>> Yes.  But FP is a dead end, you know?  Its successor, Expression Web,
is
>> VERY W3 compliant, and completely lacking the intrusive front end of
FP.
> You
>> can download a 60-day trial of it now, and you should.  It's a very
nice
>> program.
>>
>> Presently, it only supports .Net, but I am led to believe that it will
>> acquire PHP support over time.  Also, remember that this is v1, and
lacks
>> some things that you may find glaring omissions - like, it will not
save
>> your FTP info, and it has no good way to use root relative links, and
it's
> a
>> bit flaky with SSI....
>>
>> -- 
>> Murray
>>              <<(spam is no laughing matter! )>>
>> <<(to reply off-line, look at the email address - think about
it!)>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ally" <foxtrotta@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bMMmJ70JHHA.1132@ns1.xroubaix.com...
>>> Merry Christmas this fine Christmas Eve morning.
>>>
>>> I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm
"assuming" that
>>> most
>>> everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and
logic??
>>>
>>> Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version
4. In
>>> the
>>> newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant? Do I need
to
> worry
>>> about that with FrontPage 2000?
>>>
>>> I know, it's 4:30 in the morning (on Christmas Eve/Morning no
less!).
> I've
>>> become obsessed with this stuff.
>>>
>>> Ally
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 

Ally,

When I was  first learning, I used a free HTML editor that handled the 
basics, and then I was able to get a legit copy of DW3 on ebay that I 
used to upgrade to DW4, which I used happily for quite a while, only 
moving up to a more modern version after I'd had enough paying gigs to 
justify it.

In the meantime, I don't think my old freeware program exists, but you 
might be happy using something like Coffee Cup in the interim.

-- 
Bonnie
in California

> I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm "assuming"
that 
> most
> everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and logic??

FrontPage's entire approach is geared to new users, and as a result, there 
are lots of wizards and 'smoke and mirrors' in its operation.  In fact, FP 
is simply an HTML authoring system and can be used to build valid sites with 
no bloat, just the same way DW can.  But the UI of FP is much more in your 
face, the good stuff is more or less buried, and it's much more tedious to 
do that, than with DW.  But remember, it's the operator not the program that 
makes the difference.  In that regard, FP has gotten a 'bum rap'....

This forum has its roots in the DW world, hence the difference, I suppose.

> Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4. In 
> the
> newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant?

No.

> Do I need to worry
> about that with FrontPage 2000?

Yes.  But FP is a dead end, you know?  Its successor, Expression Web, is 
VERY W3 compliant, and completely lacking the intrusive front end of FP. You 
can download a 60-day trial of it now, and you should.  It's a very nice 
program.

Presently, it only supports .Net, but I am led to believe that it will 
acquire PHP support over time.  Also, remember that this is v1, and lacks 
some things that you may find glaring omissions - like, it will not save 
your FTP info, and it has no good way to use root relative links, and it's a 
bit flaky with SSI....

-- 
Murray
             <<(spam is no laughing matter! )>>
<<(to reply off-line, look at the email address - think about
it!)>>



"Ally" <foxtrotta@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:bMMmJ70JHHA.1132@ns1.xroubaix.com...
> Merry Christmas this fine Christmas Eve morning.
>
> I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm "assuming"
that 
> most
> everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and logic??
>
> Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4. In 
> the
> newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant? Do I need to worry
> about that with FrontPage 2000?
>
> I know, it's 4:30 in the morning (on Christmas Eve/Morning no less!). I've
> become obsessed with this stuff.
>
> Ally
>
> 

I missed half of your post. I thought it stopped after:

>This forum has its roots in the DW world, hence the difference, I suppose.

Some of it was greek to me but I'll figure it out. I'll consider downloading
Expression Web. Bonnie suggested Coffee Cup. YIKES there's a lot to know.

Ally


"Murray R. Summers" <murray@hahagreat-web-sights.com> wrote in
message
news:%23J2IVA2JHHA.1744@ns1.xroubaix.com...
> > I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm
"assuming" that
> > most
> > everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and
logic??
>
> FrontPage's entire approach is geared to new users, and as a result, there
> are lots of wizards and 'smoke and mirrors' in its operation.  In fact, FP
> is simply an HTML authoring system and can be used to build valid sites
with
> no bloat, just the same way DW can.  But the UI of FP is much more in your
> face, the good stuff is more or less buried, and it's much more tedious to
> do that, than with DW.  But remember, it's the operator not the program
that
> makes the difference.  In that regard, FP has gotten a 'bum rap'....
>
> This forum has its roots in the DW world, hence the difference, I suppose.
>
> > Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4.
In
> > the
> > newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant?
>
> No.
>
> > Do I need to worry
> > about that with FrontPage 2000?
>
> Yes.  But FP is a dead end, you know?  Its successor, Expression Web, is
> VERY W3 compliant, and completely lacking the intrusive front end of FP.
You
> can download a 60-day trial of it now, and you should.  It's a very nice
> program.
>
> Presently, it only supports .Net, but I am led to believe that it will
> acquire PHP support over time.  Also, remember that this is v1, and lacks
> some things that you may find glaring omissions - like, it will not save
> your FTP info, and it has no good way to use root relative links, and it's
a
> bit flaky with SSI....
>
> -- 
> Murray
>              <<(spam is no laughing matter! )>>
> <<(to reply off-line, look at the email address - think about
it!)>>
>
>
>
> "Ally" <foxtrotta@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bMMmJ70JHHA.1132@ns1.xroubaix.com...
> > Merry Christmas this fine Christmas Eve morning.
> >
> > I hardly ever hear of FrontPage in these forums so I'm
"assuming" that
> > most
> > everyone here uses Dreamweaver. Could you share your reasons and
logic??
> >
> > Plus the only copy of FrontPage I have is FrontPage 2000, version 4.
In
> > the
> > newer versions, have they made them more W3C compliant? Do I need to
worry
> > about that with FrontPage 2000?
> >
> > I know, it's 4:30 in the morning (on Christmas Eve/Morning no less!).
I've
> > become obsessed with this stuff.
> >
> > Ally
> >
> >
>
>