ContentPlaceHol der tag in ASP.NET 2.0 prevents design view in FrontPage 2003

[anton.hopen]

ASP.NET 2.0 master pages are great. However, I want to edit an ASPX
page in FrontPage for aesthetic styling reasons. The ASPX page is
linked to a master page so it naturally has a contentplacehol der ID.

Right-click in VS2005 and open it in MS FrontPage. Source appears
file. However, design view (the real reason I'm in FP anyway) will not
display unless I remove the ContentPlaceHol der tag. Specifically:

<asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHol derID="mainCont ent"
runat="Server">

Cutting the line above will let FP show the design view.

Any workarounds?

Thanks!

[Christopher Reed]

FP 2003 is not designed for .NET 2.0. Why not use the designer in VS 2005?
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

<an*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************@g 14g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...

ASP.NET 2.0 master pages are great. However, I want to edit an ASPX
page in FrontPage for aesthetic styling reasons. The ASPX page is
linked to a master page so it naturally has a contentplacehol der ID.

Right-click in VS2005 and open it in MS FrontPage. Source appears
file. However, design view (the real reason I'm in FP anyway) will not
display unless I remove the ContentPlaceHol der tag. Specifically:

<asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHol derID="mainCont ent"
runat="Server">

Cutting the line above will let FP show the design view.

Any workarounds?

Thanks!

[anton.hopen]

Is the design in VS 2005 Professional+ the same as provided in the 2005
Express Edition? If so, then FrontPage clearly is superior from a
design standpoint. I thought that was the whole point behind
CodeBehind?...l et the designers work on pretty pages while the
developers write the logic.

[Juan T. Llibre]

Code-behind has nothing to do with design.
It has to do with functionality.

If you want to work on design, work with the VS IDE in design mode,
and you'll be able to place your controls in esthetically pleasing locations.

While the design tools in the VS IDE are not top-level,
they provide enough location pin-pointing to please most programmers.


Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
aspnetfaq.com : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== =====
<an*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Is the design in VS 2005 Professional+ the same as provided in the 2005
Express Edition? If so, then FrontPage clearly is superior from a
design standpoint. I thought that was the whole point behind
CodeBehind?...l et the designers work on pretty pages while the
developers write the logic.

[Christopher Reed]

I'm not sure if I completely agree. While FP 2003 will support .NET 1.x, it
still has issues, especially since you cannot use code-behind if you use FP
2003.

Frankly, having used both FP 2003 and VS 2003, both designers are rather
kludgy. On the other hand, VS 2005 will at least keep the HTML code stable
and not reformat it each and every time you go in and out of the designer.
Still, in the long run, you're probably better with writing the code and
then previewing the page in your browser.

Yes, let the designers design; however, the intent behind that is that the
designer using the VS designer and the programmer uses VS to program the
code-behind.

Overall, FP 2003 does not support .NET 2.0, so I don't believe that it'll be
an option for you if you use something like a ContentPlaceHol der object.
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

<an*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ f14g2000cwb.goo glegroups.com.. .

Is the design in VS 2005 Professional+ the same as provided in the 2005
Express Edition? If so, then FrontPage clearly is superior from a
design standpoint. I thought that was the whole point behind
CodeBehind?...l et the designers work on pretty pages while the
developers write the logic.