469,328 Members | 1,265 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,328 developers. It's quick & easy.

Dreamweaver or Frontpage or Plain HTML

I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor. I have
not had experience building web pages but have had several years
experience in programming in C and C++ and in using LaTeX for document
preparation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Peter.

Jan 9 '06 #1
53 4327
Ma**********@excite.com wrote:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor. I have
not had experience building web pages but have had several years
experience in programming in C and C++ and in using LaTeX for document
preparation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Not tried fp, but dw seems to be a very primitive table-based thing - I
shelled out for it, but junked it after a while.

html-kit from www.chami.com is good, or notepad.

Chris
Jan 9 '06 #2
With neither quill nor qualm, Ma**********@excite.com quothed:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor.


The latter. Html is simple. Css, which you'll also need, is fairly
simple although there are some issues regarding its efficacy and inter-
browser rendering.

You should be able to make a decent web page within 1-2 weeks. If you
apply yourself, you could be an "expert" in both well within a year.

I started by viewing the source of and "hacking" (-benignly) html email
then diddling with frontpage and being accordingly dissatisfied then
viewing the source of web pages I liked on the Net. The biggest flaw in
my learning-curve was not finding a newsgroup such as this one sooner to
get feedback on which procedures were right and which were not so right
as well as further methods and additional information not encountered in
my other efforts.

Hope this helps.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Jan 9 '06 #3
Ma**********@excite.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor. I have
not had experience building web pages but have had several years
experience in programming in C and C++ and in using LaTeX for document
preparation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Peter.


Hello Peter,
No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big money
and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or Frontpage.
Try this link:
http://www.evrsoft.com, It's free for the taking and has four levels of
function, from newbie to pro...built in FTP also.

Just a suggestion, hope this helps, and good luck.
granpaw
Jan 9 '06 #4
Spend 80 dollars and get a proffessionally designed template if you can find
one to suit your needs.

Yes - we all know that webmasters are meant to make their own web pages,
only use notepad, only eat jolt and pizza and masturbate nightly with
cheesegraters etc, but it is just irresistably cost effective to use off the
shelf.

I tend to use project 7 templates simply because it would cost me waaaay
more than the template cost to do it myself. You only get so much time in a
day and some tasks pay better dividends than others.
Jan 9 '06 #5
Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
Rastus <zz******@iinet.net.au> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:
...
Yes - we all know that webmasters are meant to make their own web pages,
only use notepad, only eat jolt and pizza and masturbate nightly with
cheesegraters etc,


Just nightly? bah - lightweight :)

--
William Tasso

dreaming in monochrome binary - to save bandwidth
Jan 9 '06 #6
Ma**********@excite.com wrote:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor. I have
not had experience building web pages but have had several years
experience in programming in C and C++ and in using LaTeX for document
preparation.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Peter.

If you are a very good computer programmer it is likely that you are
not a very good aesthetic designer so go to http://www.oswd.org/ and
pick one of the free, open source, site templates. Get with the trend
and use the advanced search to ensure that the site you pick uses CSS
and conforms to one of the XHTML standards.

Now go to
<http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=dreamweaver>
and download the free thirty day trial. Use it to change the site you
downloaded to match your requirements. It includes a perfectly good
text editor and an FTP program which is the minimum requirement to set
up a web site. If, at the end of the thirty days, you find you have
only used the text editor and FTP program then choose something else.
If, like me, you like the way Dreamweaver can edit a site from the
code, pictorial, CSS or even File view buy it. You may even want to
buy it because it provides a one-click way to view your pages in each
of the multiple browsers you should have on your computer or because
it will reformat, validate and check the links on your pages.

I should add that if you currently program in C++ using only vi,
Notepad, punched cards or even Emacs you will hate Dreamweaver. Use
the one you like to edit the HTML.
Jan 9 '06 #7
Use latex2html if you're already familiar with latex.

HTML is a much simpler markup language than latex, so you can probably
pick it up quickly once you're done with your current project.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Easily organize and disseminate news and
photos for your family or group.
Jan 9 '06 #8
David Segall wrote:
If you are a very good computer programmer it is likely that you are
not a very good aesthetic designer so go to http://www.oswd.org/ and
pick one of the free, open source, site templates. Get with the trend
and use the advanced search to ensure that the site you pick uses CSS
and conforms to one of the XHTML standards.


xhtml may be trendy, but isn't yet widely supported, so not the best
choice for an accessible website.

In html+css, www.oswd.org has no strict compliant templates, afaics.
I looked at a few of the transitional ones - mostly junk, a few
exercises by self-confessed newbies, some that seem broken - worth every
penny, I guess.

Chris
Jan 9 '06 #9
On 8 Jan 2006 07:56:37 -0800, Ma**********@excite.com wrote:
have had several years experience in using LaTeX


Some guys have all the luck! I can't get my missus to wear PVC, let
alone rubber.....

</get coat>
Matt
PS

As everyone else has said, use a text editor and learn HTML, it's very
simple and unsophisticated.
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jan 9 '06 #10
David Segall wrote:
If you are a very good computer programmer it is likely that you are
not a very good aesthetic designer so go to http://www.oswd.org/...


nice site.

Jan 9 '06 #11
On 8 Jan 2006 07:56:37 -0800, Ma**********@excite.com posted something
that included:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor.


No.

People are going to judge you software by the quality of your website.
You don't want a static website; you need something dynamic. A
bulletin board lets your users rave about your product, lets your
users suggest new uses for your product, and provide workarounds for
the, ahem, "features" we all work so hard to avoid. A blog lets your
users feel like they know you personally, and not only do many people
prefer to buy from a friend, even the ones that want to keep an arms'
length from their suppliers will be happy to believe that it's easy to
contact you for support. They worry about buying a product they can't
figure out how to use, with support in Mumbai, complete with such a
heavy accent they can't undestand.

Since you only have one product (or a half-dozen), you may well be
using PayPal and 2checkOut or something like that for processing
payments. (Some people love PayPal, some people hate it, and you will
benefit from offering potential customers both options.)

Consequently, you don't really need ZenCart or OSCommerce or some
other full-fledged shopping cart. That means you can use a regular CMS
instead. Drupal is pretty easy to deal with, and it's the one I would
go with.

Another solution might be to go with Mambo Open Source or Joomla.
These are basically the same product - there's recently been a rift in
the developer community, and it appears most of them are now working
on the new product, Joomla, instead of MOS. I've not spent much time
with Joomla, but there is a patch available that allows you can to use
single-sign-in Mambo Open Source with Simple Machines Forum for a BBS.
There are a lot of other CMSes, but they tend to be lot more
slashdottish in appearance, and I hink you probably want a website
that looks simple, clean, easy to use, because that will suggest to
customers that your C++ software will be simple and clean in
appearance, and easy to use.

Good luck in your venture!

--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?
Jan 9 '06 #12
> If you are a very good computer programmer it is likely that you are
not a very good aesthetic designer so go to http://www.oswd.org/ and
pick one of the free, open source, site templates.


But DO NOT pick a good looking one. Pretend you are actually trying to
find stuff out from their website - see if it's easy to navigate,
resizes gracefully, and doesn't waste precious monitor real estate.
There are many pretty sites that are just a pain to use.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Jan 9 '06 #13
In message <11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
Ma**********@excite.com writes
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor. I have
not had experience building web pages but have had several years
experience in programming in C and C++ and in using LaTeX for document
preparation.

I use htmlvalidator.com
Try it online here:
http://www.siliconglen.com/usability/

or download the free version here
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/

--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). http://www.SiliconGlen.com/
Please sign the Spam Petition: http://www.siliconglen.com/spampetition/
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, weddings, website design, stop spam and more!
Jan 9 '06 #14
Craig Cockburn wrote
I use htmlvalidator.com
Try it online here:
http://www.sillyconglen.com/usability/


At *your* site. How convenient.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
Jan 10 '06 #15
>I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor.


As a fellow C++ programmer, I can say that you will find the FrontPage IDE
easier to get used to. However, I can't stand FP and only use Dreamweaver --
which in my opinion is far superior.
--
WW
www.rabbitstewlounge.com
Jan 10 '06 #16
"granpaw" <dontsend@here> wrote in message
news:dN********************@centurytel.net...
Ma**********@excite.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:

<snip>
Hello Peter,
No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big money
and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or Frontpage.


</snip>
Can you be more specific about what DW adds to the code?

--

Samman
Rip it to reply

Jan 11 '06 #17
Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sa*@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:
"granpaw" <dontsend@here> wrote in message
news:dN********************@centurytel.net...
Ma**********@excite.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:


<snip>
Hello Peter,
No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big money
and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or Frontpage.


</snip>
Can you be more specific about what DW adds to the code?


example only:

<table>
....
<tr width="270">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

....

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><b r>

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.
Jan 11 '06 #18
"William Tasso" <Sp*********@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op*******************@tbdata.com...
Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sa*@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:
"granpaw" <dontsend@here> wrote in message
news:dN********************@centurytel.net...
Ma**********@excite.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:


<snip>
Hello Peter,
No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big money
and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or Frontpage.


</snip>
Can you be more specific about what DW adds to the code?


example only:

<table>
...
<tr width="270">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

...

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><b r>

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

That is indeed interesting...
I have been working with DW in a production environment for about 4 years
and have not witnessed code (markup) being generated like that, unless asked
to do so.

Example. I asked DW to make a table, 100% in width, 3 rows and 2 columns.
Here is the markup it gave me...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>

The non-breaking spaces it inserts are just placeholders, where other
objects/content would be placed. After content is added, it looks like this
(no code cleaning was done)...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor si</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit am</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscin</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit </td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet</td>
</tr>
</table>

Looks pretty clean to me, nicely indented, etc...

I'm not trying to convince you to use the tool. Use whatever you are
comfortable, happy & productive with. :-)

--

Samman
Rip it to reply

Jan 11 '06 #19
Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sa*@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:
"William Tasso" <Sp*********@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op*******************@tbdata.com...
Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sa*@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:
"granpaw" <dontsend@here> wrote in message
news:dN********************@centurytel.net...
Ma**********@excite.com wrote in
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
<snip>

Hello Peter,
No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big
money
and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or
Frontpage.

</snip>
Can you be more specific about what DW adds to the code?

example only:

<table>
...
<tr width="270">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

...

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><b r>


That is indeed interesting...
I have been working with DW in a production environment for about 4 years
and have not witnessed code (markup) being generated like that, unless
asked
to do so.
well - yes, that's the point isn't it.
Example. I asked DW to make a table, 100% in width, 3 rows and 2 columns.
Here is the markup it gave me...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
Ahh yes - forgot the &nbsp; - apologies, above was from memory.
The non-breaking spaces it inserts are just placeholders, where other
objects/content would be placed. After content is added, it looks like
this
(no code cleaning was done)...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor si</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit am</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscin</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit </td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet</td>
</tr>
</table>

Looks pretty clean to me, nicely indented, etc...
markup looks just fine and dandy[1] - goes to show that power-tools make
stuff quicker, not necessarily better[2]. Not sure where you're posting
from, but in AWW we see a lot of empty tables when reviewing
DW/FP/whatever generated pages
I'm not trying to convince you to use the tool. Use whatever you are
comfortable, happy & productive with. :-)


Likewise - live long and prosper.

[1] usual caveats about correct use of table markup applies
[2] the number of people that can't drill a straight hole is truly
astonishing
--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.
Jan 12 '06 #20
William Tasso wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big
> money
> and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or
> Frontpage.
</snip>
Can you be more specific about what DW adds to the code?
example only:

<table>
...
<tr width="270">
I've never seen a width applied to a <tr>.
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

...

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><b r>

That is indeed interesting...
I have been working with DW in a production environment for about 4 years
and have not witnessed code (markup) being generated like that,
unless asked
to do so.

well - yes, that's the point isn't it.
Example. I asked DW to make a table, 100% in width, 3 rows and 2 columns.
Here is the markup it gave me...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>

Ahh yes - forgot the &nbsp; - apologies, above was from memory.
The non-breaking spaces it inserts are just placeholders, where other
objects/content would be placed. After content is added, it looks
like this
(no code cleaning was done)...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor si</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit am</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscin</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit </td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet</td>
</tr>
</table>

Looks pretty clean to me, nicely indented, etc...

markup looks just fine and dandy[1] - goes to show that power-tools
make stuff quicker, not necessarily better[2]. Not sure where you're
posting from, but in AWW we see a lot of empty tables when reviewing
DW/FP/whatever generated pages


Well sure, if the user tells it to create a table and then doesn't
populate it with anything. Seems to me the tool has done exactly what it
was told to do, yes?
I'm not trying to convince you to use the tool. Use whatever you are
comfortable, happy & productive with. :-)

Likewise - live long and prosper.

[1] usual caveats about correct use of table markup applies
[2] the number of people that can't drill a straight hole is truly
astonishing


Indeed. :)

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

================================================== ====
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ks*****@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
================================================== ====
Jan 12 '06 #21
"William Tasso" <Sp*********@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op*******************@tbdata.com...
Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sa*@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:
"William Tasso" <Sp*********@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op*******************@tbdata.com...
Fleeing from the madness of the Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com jungle
Samman <sa*@psfripitdev.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:

"granpaw" <dontsend@here> wrote in message
news:dN********************@centurytel.net...
> Ma**********@excite.com wrote in
> news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com:
>

<snip>

> Hello Peter,
> No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big
> money
> and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or
> Frontpage.

</snip>
Can you be more specific about what DW adds to the code?
example only:

<table>
...
<tr width="270">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>

...

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><b r>

That is indeed interesting...
I have been working with DW in a production environment for about 4 years
and have not witnessed code (markup) being generated like that, unless
asked
to do so.


well - yes, that's the point isn't it.


I failed to see any "junk"... Isn't that the point?
Example. I asked DW to make a table, 100% in width, 3 rows and 2 columns.
Here is the markup it gave me...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
Ahh yes - forgot the &nbsp; - apologies, above was from memory.


I can see where this may be going.

The non-breaking spaces it inserts are just placeholders, where other
objects/content would be placed. After content is added, it looks like
this
(no code cleaning was done)...

<table width="100%" summary="test table">
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor si</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consect</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit am</td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscin</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit </td>
<td>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet</td>
</tr>
</table>

Looks pretty clean to me, nicely indented, etc...
markup looks just fine and dandy[1] - goes to show that power-tools make
stuff quicker, not necessarily better[2]. Not sure where you're posting
from, but in AWW we see a lot of empty tables when reviewing
DW/FP/whatever generated pages


A cave in the Appalacian Mtns. , on Mars, in Ted Kennedy's car going over a
bridge.
????
I'm not trying to convince you to use the tool. Use whatever you are
comfortable, happy & productive with. :-)
Likewise - live long and prosper.


.... and may the Force be with you :-/

"Have any of you nerds actually SEEN a vagina? If you had a police line-up
with a vigina, a donut, and a mop, would you be able to pick out the vagina?
Cause the minute you can, you're gonna throw that Stormtrooper cookie jar
right out the window!" - Bobcat Goldthwait

[1] usual caveats about correct use of table markup applies
[2] the number of people that can't drill a straight hole is truly
astonishing
--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

Jan 12 '06 #22
Ma**********@excite.com wrote:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor. I have
not had experience building web pages but have had several years
experience in programming in C and C++ and in using LaTeX for document
preparation.


I hear that FP is joining NetObjects Fusion in the league of worst web
page editors ever made. Some of the newer versions do some things that
exceed all stupidity, e.g. in some circums it'll convert a block of text
into an ugly image for no reason.

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

Hand-coding is the way to go.

But since you're a programmer - maybe you could write your own HTML
editor? Perhaps a syntax-directed editor, a WYSIWYM or something for a
change.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 13 '06 #23
And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:
I hear that FP is joining NetObjects Fusion in the league of worst web
page editors ever made. Some of the newer versions do some things that
exceed all stupidity, e.g. in some circums it'll convert a block of text
into an ugly image for no reason.

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html
I took a little time to read that article and it is a *terrible* example
to foist on newbies who want to abandon WYSIWYG obsfucation. It was
written in 1997, and is now horribly out of date. It actually recommends
replacing this bit of WYSIWYG code:

<CENTER><DIV ALIGN=CENTER><P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica"><FONT SIZE="+1"><FONT
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P></DIV></CENTER>

.... with this "huge" improvement:

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>

For heaven sakes, you shouldn't be inserting empty <p> tags for blank
space in the *first place*! The proper "replacement" would be to remove
the code altogether and apply a greater CSS margin to the sibling elements.
Hand-coding is the way to go.


It certainly is, but don't follow any advice from that article, except the
part where it says to stop using the WYSIWYG editor. :)

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine
Jan 13 '06 #24
GreyWyvern wrote:
And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html: <snip>
http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html


I took a little time to read that article and it is a *terrible* example
to foist on newbies who want to abandon WYSIWYG obsfucation.


Actually, it's aimed at people who want to be responsible WYSIWYDG
editor owners. Though it is also of use to people who want to throw
them away.
It was written in 1997, and is now horribly out of date.
Maybe one or two bits of that page are a little out of date, but I don't
see how the page as a whole is.
It actually recommends replacing this bit of WYSIWYG code:

<CENTER><DIV ALIGN=CENTER><P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica"><FONT SIZE="+1"><FONT
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P></DIV></CENTER>

... with this "huge" improvement:

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>

For heaven sakes, you shouldn't be inserting empty <p> tags for blank
space in the *first place*! The proper "replacement" would be to remove
the code altogether and apply a greater CSS margin to the sibling elements.


Yes, but the point of that piece was to illustrate the absent-mindedness
of these editors. It perhaps isn't surprising that some naive editors
will assume you really did want a paragraph containing a single hard
space, but the bloatedness of what some programs do produce is silly.
Hand-coding is the way to go.


It certainly is, but don't follow any advice from that article, except
the part where it says to stop using the WYSIWYG editor. :)


So you think that, when somebody decides to switch to hand-coding,
he/she/it should just leave in all the mess that the old editor put there?

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 13 '06 #25
And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:
GreyWyvern wrote:
It actually recommends replacing this bit of WYSIWYG code:
<CENTER><DIV ALIGN=CENTER><P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica"><FONT SIZE="+1"><FONT
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P></DIV></CENTER>
... with this "huge" improvement:
<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>
For heaven sakes, you shouldn't be inserting empty <p> tags for blank
space in the *first place*! The proper "replacement" would be to
remove the code altogether and apply a greater CSS margin to the
sibling elements.


Yes, but the point of that piece was to illustrate the absent-mindedness
of these editors. It perhaps isn't surprising that some naive editors
will assume you really did want a paragraph containing a single hard
space, but the bloatedness of what some programs do produce is silly.


*My* point is that the article *recommends* using the second given code
snippet above as a replacement for the WYSIWYG code. *Both* examples are
horribly bloated.
Hand-coding is the way to go.


It certainly is, but don't follow any advice from that article, except
the part where it says to stop using the WYSIWYG editor. :)


So you think that, when somebody decides to switch to hand-coding,
he/she/it should just leave in all the mess that the old editor put
there?


No. I think that if someone is going to switch from WYSIWYG to
hand-coding, they shouldn't start with WYSIWYG code and prune down from
there. Rather they should start with a blank text editor (and perhaps an
HTML/CSS reference guide or two) and work their way up.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine
Jan 13 '06 #26
GreyWyvern wrote:
And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:
GreyWyvern wrote:
It actually recommends replacing this bit of WYSIWYG code:
<CENTER><DIV ALIGN=CENTER><P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT
FACE="Arial,Helvetica"><FONT SIZE="+1"><FONT
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></FONT></FONT></P></DIV></CENTER>
... with this "huge" improvement:
<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>
For heaven sakes, you shouldn't be inserting empty <p> tags for
blank space in the *first place*! The proper "replacement" would be
to remove the code altogether and apply a greater CSS margin to the
sibling elements.
<snip> *My* point is that the article *recommends* using the second given code
snippet above as a replacement for the WYSIWYG code. *Both* examples
are horribly bloated.
No it doesn't. Read the sentence that introduces the second code
snippet again (assuming you ever read it at all), especially the first
two words of it.

<snip> No. I think that if someone is going to switch from WYSIWYG to
hand-coding, they shouldn't start with WYSIWYG code and prune down from
there. Rather they should start with a blank text editor (and perhaps
an HTML/CSS reference guide or two) and work their way up.


Assuming that, if they had made it look very "fancy" in the WYSIWYDG,
then they don't mind that the site'll look more basic until they've
learned the particular bits of CSS to achieve the desired level of
fanciness.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 13 '06 #27
And lo, Stewart Gordon didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:
GreyWyvern wrote:
*My* point is that the article *recommends* using the second given code
snippet above as a replacement for the WYSIWYG code. *Both* examples
are horribly bloated.


No it doesn't. Read the sentence that introduces the second code
snippet again (assuming you ever read it at all), especially the first
two words of it.


Here, I will quote you the relevant part of the article with my reponses:

"This whole big mess of code [the WYSIWYG block] serves only to insert a
blank paragraph for vertical spacing, accomplishable via <P></P>. All the
other tags are useless."
According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.
This is error #1: *All* the tags listed are useless.
"They're added because the editors are so dumb that if you have stuff like
font settings enabled they insist on adding them even to blank spaces. The
editors are also pretty dumb about failing to collapse redundant tags.
Even if the various font changes above were actually needed to make sure
that blank space was rendered correctly, you could have done it with:

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>"
This is error #2. This is certainly not the furthest you could distil an
empty paragraph tag down to while including all of the formatting given
above. The correct replacement would be:

CSS:
p.empty {
text-align:center;
font:bold 110% Arial,Helvetica;
color:red;
}

HTML
<p>&nbsp;</p>

However, even this is spurious, since the entire section of code, both CSS
and HTML, is completely unnecessary. You may respond to this saying:
"Hey, it was only an example to collapse redundant tags, not a
recommendation as to what coders should actually use." Aha, well, I offer
you the next paragraph of the article:
"Note how the three different centering tags were reduced to an attribute
of the single paragraph tag, and the three different font settings were
made into attributes of one FONT tag. This produces a shorter, cleaner,
more logical piece of code, showing the advantages of coding by hand
instead of using some silly editor!"
So, with this confirmation, WYSIWYG'ers come away with the idea that the
use of the tags above is both correct and acceptable. This is not a good
thing.
No. I think that if someone is going to switch from WYSIWYG to
hand-coding, they shouldn't start with WYSIWYG code and prune down from
there. Rather they should start with a blank text editor (and perhaps
an HTML/CSS reference guide or two) and work their way up.


Assuming that, if they had made it look very "fancy" in the WYSIWYDG,
then they don't mind that the site'll look more basic until they've
learned the particular bits of CSS to achieve the desired level of
fanciness.


"Fanciness" is overrated. Accessibility isn't.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine
Jan 13 '06 #28
And lo, GreyWyvern didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:
CSS:
p.empty {
text-align:center;
font:bold 110% Arial,Helvetica;
color:red;
}

HTML
<p>&nbsp;</p>


Okay, okay. I got my own example wrong :P You know what I meant; just
add class="empty" to the <p> element.

Grey
Jan 13 '06 #29
I think coding in plain HTML is easier than the Dreamweaver and
Frontpage vendors claim. If you're doing a sizable web site, it's true
that the first few pages you code might have been faster in
Dreamweaver, but as you get into it, you find that you're doing more
cut/paste/modify than new code and your speed increases. In the end,
plain HTML is faster than Dreamweaver/Frontpage because you don't have
to duke it out with program that doesn't always do things the way you
want them done.

It's pretty much the same as the reasons your coding in C or C++
rather than something like COBOL.

Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Jan 13 '06 #30
GreyWyvern wrote:
<snip>
Here, I will quote you the relevant part of the article with my reponses:

"This whole big mess of code [the WYSIWYG block] serves only to insert a
blank paragraph for vertical spacing, accomplishable via <P></P>. All
the other tags are useless."

According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.
This is error #1: *All* the tags listed are useless.
Yes, I pointed out that error once but the correction didn't make it in
for some strange reason. However, it's still correct that all other
_tags_ are useless, since &nbsp; is not a tag.
"They're added because the editors are so dumb that if you have stuff
like font settings enabled they insist on adding them even to blank
spaces. The editors are also pretty dumb about failing to collapse
redundant tags. Even if the various font changes above were actually
needed to make sure that blank space was rendered correctly, you could
have done it with:

<P ALIGN=CENTER><FONT FACE="Arial,Helvetica" SIZE="+1"
COLOR="red"><B>&nbsp;</B></FONT></P>"

This is error #2. This is certainly not the furthest you could distil
an empty paragraph tag down to while including all of the formatting
given above. <snip> However, even this is spurious, since the entire section of code, both
CSS and HTML, is completely unnecessary. You may respond to this
saying: "Hey, it was only an example to collapse redundant tags, not a
recommendation as to what coders should actually use."
Exactly.
Aha, well, I offer you the next paragraph of the article:

"Note how the three different centering tags were reduced to an
attribute of the single paragraph tag, and the three different font
settings were made into attributes of one FONT tag. This produces a
shorter, cleaner, more logical piece of code, showing the advantages of
coding by hand instead of using some silly editor!"
Yes, it's an advantage as far as it's a first step in cutting down code
bloat. A similar argument could probably be applied to
program-generated versus human-generated CSS code.
So, with this confirmation, WYSIWYG'ers come away with the idea that the
use of the tags above is both correct and acceptable. This is not a
good thing.


It is "correct", at least if the (X)HTML flavour specified in the
DOCTYPE declaration has "Transitional" in its name.

It is "acceptable", at least as far as all validators and web browsers
I've seen are concerned.

Whether it's the approach recommended by the authorities is another matter.
No. I think that if someone is going to switch from WYSIWYG to
hand-coding, they shouldn't start with WYSIWYG code and prune down
from there. Rather they should start with a blank text editor (and
perhaps an HTML/CSS reference guide or two) and work their way up.


Assuming that, if they had made it look very "fancy" in the WYSIWYDG,
then they don't mind that the site'll look more basic until they've
learned the particular bits of CSS to achieve the desired level of
fanciness.


"Fanciness" is overrated. Accessibility isn't.


Good point.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jan 13 '06 #31
Fleeing from the madness of the Loughborough University, UK jungle
Stewart Gordon <sm*******@yahoo.com> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...authoring.html
and said:

[f'up rearranged]
...
Whether it's the approach recommended by the authorities is another
matter.


I cannot recommend that the authorities are approached except with extreme
caution and an armed escort.

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.
Jan 13 '06 #32
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:37:37 -0500, GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.com>
posted something that included:
According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.


What specification are you talking about? It does NOT say that in the
current HTML/4.01 specification, nor in any prior specification for
HTML.

Some browsers will collapse a series of multiple <br> and <p> tags
into a single <p> tag, and a series of multiple <br> tags into a
single <br> tag. Others will not. The HTML specification does not
specify which is the correct behavior.

If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "no more on this line" and
the <p> tag as meaning "no more on this line or a certain amount of
vertical space below this line", then collapsing the tags makes sense.
If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "move to the next line", and
the <p> tag as meaning "move down a bit and then move to the next
line", then producing greater vertical space due to the repetition
doesn't.

And since the HTML specification doesn't say which is the proper
interpretation, browser writers are free to use either interpretation.
The </p> tag is ignored in HTML. The effect of attributes to a <p> tag
last until the tag of that level.


--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?
Jan 13 '06 #33
And lo, Paul Ding didst speak in
alt.html,alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...uthoring.html:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:37:37 -0500, GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.com>
posted something that included:
According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.
What specification are you talking about? It does NOT say that in the
current HTML/4.01 specification, nor in any prior specification for
HTML.


Au contraire:

"We discourage authors from using empty P elements. User agents should
ignore empty P elements."
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1

Unfortunately, the specifications are only useful if they get read.
Some browsers will collapse a series of multiple <br> and <p> tags
into a single <p> tag, and a series of multiple <br> tags into a
single <br> tag. Others will not. The HTML specification does not
specify which is the correct behavior.
<br> tags are outside the scope of this discussion. The spec, however, is
quite clear about empty <p> elements. See above.
If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "no more on this line" and
the <p> tag as meaning "no more on this line or a certain amount of
vertical space below this line", then collapsing the tags makes sense.
If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "move to the next line", and
the <p> tag as meaning "move down a bit and then move to the next
line", then producing greater vertical space due to the repetition
doesn't.
These tags are, and should always be, interpreted as defined within the
specifications. The <p></p> element defines the beginning and end of a
paragraph, without implying visual styling of any kind. If someone
depends upon this tag to "move down a bit and then move to the next line"
they are setting themselves up for a fall if and when a UA decides to
implement their default paragraph styling in another way.
And since the HTML specification doesn't say which is the proper
interpretation, browser writers are free to use either interpretation.
The </p> tag is ignored in HTML.
This is simply untrue. Why are you perpetuating this misconception?
The effect of attributes to a <p> tag last until the tag of that level.


I don't know what you mean by this, perhaps you could clarify.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine
Jan 13 '06 #34
Paul Ding wrote in
<ko********************************@4ax.com>

<snip>
If you interpret the <br> tag as meaning "move to the next line", and
the <p> tag as meaning "move down a bit and then move to the next
line", ...


....you'll probably be making a bit of a mistake.
--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.
Jan 13 '06 #35
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:21:41 -0500, GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.com>
wrote:
http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html


I took a little time to read that article and it is a *terrible* example
to foist on newbies who want to abandon WYSIWYG obsfucation. It was
written in 1997, and is now horribly out of date.


On a .info domain ?

Chances are it's quite a recent page. Which is even worse.
Jan 14 '06 #36
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:09:51 +0000, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:21:41 -0500, GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.com>
wrote:
http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html


I took a little time to read that article and it is a *terrible* example
to foist on newbies who want to abandon WYSIWYG obsfucation. It was
written in 1997, and is now horribly out of date.


On a .info domain ?


How do you know it's not a 1997 product that's been moved to an .info
site?
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Jan 14 '06 #37
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:54:14 -0800, Blinky the Shark
<no*****@box.invalid> posted something that included:
http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html I took a little time to read that article and it is a *terrible* example
to foist on newbies who want to abandon WYSIWYG obsfucation. It was
written in 1997, and is now horribly out of date.
On a .info domain ?
How do you know it's not a 1997 product that's been moved to an .info
site?


The Wayback Machine is your friend.

http://web.archive.org/web/199904220...s/wysiwyg.html

However, although the page is old, Dan Tobias is still right to keep
the page up. HTML editors are still terrible, are still doing much of
the same crap, and my prediction is that they will still be bad in
2025.

--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?
Jan 14 '06 #38

Warren Warden wrote:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor.


As a fellow C++ programmer, I can say that you will find the FrontPage IDE
easier to get used to. However, I can't stand FP and only use Dreamweaver --
which in my opinion is far superior.
--
WW
www.rabbitstewlounge.com


I agree, Dreamweaver is just simpler and more user friendly. Besides,
Front page ads alot of unnecessary tags.

I think after years of working.. I somehow decided to keep using Visual
Interdev '98 , I usually type out most of the code. I know its the long
way, but I have way more control.

I just got used to Interdev's color scheme for the code... I find it
long to apply the same on other software, although, If I had to switch,
I would definately choose Dremweaver.

anyone else with me on this?

Guil.
http://www.partsearch.us/Electronic_Part_index/X/1.html

Jan 14 '06 #39
I'm with you. I haven't personally used FrontPage, but I've taken over
sites that had been built with it. It creates such a tag soup that it's
given me a really bad (make that really, really bad) taste in my mouth
for FrontPage.

Personally, I would commend a good code-oriented text editor to you.
I'm quite happy with SciTe, because it gives me great syntax
highlighting. It also understands languages like PHP and Ruby, so it's
better suited to scripting than Dreamweaver or something (you can edit
any text file with Dreamweaver too; you just don't have so much text
editing out of the box). If you're going to do much with a web site,
you ought to expect to use scripting languages eventually if not at
first.

One other issue in this: if you want to make a first-class web site,
you'll want to set up a css-based layout rather than a table-based
layout. Others may disagree with me on this, but without taking time to
lay out the case, I think I have the votes of virtually all
forward-thinking web developers. Last I checked, all of the mainstream
WYSIWYG editors create table-based layouts, so if you use them, you'll
want to do a lot of hand coding anyway.

So, I still use SciTe, and use PHP for simple web sites just to handle
repeating elements using "include." There are lots of really good web
pros who do the same. Nevertheless, I'm not against Dreamweaver and
plan to purchase it pretty soon. I have at least one friend who's a web
developer, who uses css layouts vs. tables, and who loves Dreamweaver
for the help it gives him with editing css and stuff. Dreamweaver won't
get in your way if you're coding by hand, and there are good articles
out there on how make it behave in a good standards-compliant way.

HTH,
Jonathan

Jan 14 '06 #40
GreyWyvern wrote:
According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.


"We discourage authors from using empty P elements. User agents should
ignore empty P elements."
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1


FYI, "user agents *should*..." only makes it desirable behavior, not
required.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 15 '06 #41

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, kchayka wrote:
FYI, "user agents *should*..." only makes it desirable behavior, not
required.


The HTML spec cites the definitions in RFC2119, where it says:

SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

I'd say that's stronger than merely "desirable", wouldn't you?

To me it says "you'd better have a jolly convincing excuse if you
fail to comply with such a recommendation".
Jan 15 '06 #42
kchayka wrote:
GreyWyvern wrote:
According to the spec, empty <p></p> tags should be ignored completely.


"We discourage authors from using empty P elements. User agents should
ignore empty P elements."
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1

FYI, "user agents *should*..." only makes it desirable behavior, not
required.


If you think about it <p></p> structurally make no sense, a paragraph
with *no* words. But we all know why it is usually is done, the author
wants more space above another block, which is a *style* issue. Should
be done

..moreheadroom { margin-top: 3em; }

<p>Some bit of info, blah blah blah...</p>
<p class="moreheadroom">Ah! Now that is better...</p>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jan 15 '06 #43
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:54:14 -0800, Blinky the Shark
<no*****@box.invalid> wrote:
On a .info domain ?


How do you know it's not a 1997 product that's been moved to an .info
site?


Because (thankfully) I have better things to do with my weekend !

Jan 15 '06 #44
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, kchayka wrote:
FYI, "user agents *should*..." only makes it desirable behavior, not
required.


The HTML spec cites the definitions in RFC2119

To me it says "you'd better have a jolly convincing excuse if you
fail to comply with such a recommendation".


I spent numerous years both writing and reviewing software requirement
specifications, where "should" wasn't considered quite as strong as that. :)

It didn't occur to me that the word would have a different emphasis in
the HTML spec. Now I know!

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 15 '06 #45
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
kchayka wrote:

FYI, "user agents *should*..." only makes it desirable behavior, not
required.


If you think about it <p></p> structurally make no sense,


I wasn't really promoting the use of empty paragraphs (I think they are
darned silly and just add bloat). I was really only debating the meaning
of the word "should".

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 15 '06 #46
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:29:52 +0000, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:54:14 -0800, Blinky the Shark <no*****@box.invalid>
wrote:
On a .info domain ?


How do you know it's not a 1997 product that's been moved to an .info
site?


Because (thankfully) I have better things to do with my weekend !


Than to think clearly and avoid assumptions? :)

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Jan 15 '06 #47
Neredbojias wrote:
With neither quill nor qualm, Ma**********@excite.com quothed:
I am starting up a home business and will be setting up a web site to
market the software that I will be developing in C++. I was wondering
if I should buy something like Dreamweaver or Frontpage or try to
develop the web pages directly using HTML and a text editor.


The latter. Html is simple. Css, which you'll also need, is fairly
simple although there are some issues regarding its efficacy and inter-
browser rendering.

You should be able to make a decent web page within 1-2 weeks. If you
apply yourself, you could be an "expert" in both well within a year.

I started by viewing the source of and "hacking" (-benignly) html email
then diddling with frontpage and being accordingly dissatisfied then
viewing the source of web pages I liked on the Net. The biggest flaw in
my learning-curve was not finding a newsgroup such as this one sooner to
get feedback on which procedures were right and which were not so right
as well as further methods and additional information not encountered in
my other efforts.


That sounds like the way to do it. I have taken that approach with
nroff in the past. Yikes, that probably ages me a bit. :-)

Thanks very much,
Peter.

Jan 16 '06 #48
>
Hello Peter,
No one needs to use a bloated (IMHO) webpage editor that costs big money
and adds all kinds of useless junk to your code usch as DW or Frontpage.
Try this link:
http://www.evrsoft.com, It's free for the taking and has four levels of
function, from newbie to pro...built in FTP also.

Just a suggestion, hope this helps, and good luck.
granpaw


Thanks very much. I'll try it out.

Peter.

Jan 16 '06 #49

Rastus wrote:
Spend 80 dollars and get a proffessionally designed template if you can find
one to suit your needs.

Yes - we all know that webmasters are meant to make their own web pages,
only use notepad, only eat jolt and pizza and masturbate nightly with
cheesegraters etc, but it is just irresistably cost effective to use off the
shelf.

I tend to use project 7 templates simply because it would cost me waaaay
more than the template cost to do it myself. You only get so much time in a
day and some tasks pay better dividends than others.


Your time-is-money argument is a good one. However, there have also
been cases in the past where I lost a tremendous amount of time because
my boss was so anxious that I not redesign the wheel that I ended up
disassembling someone else's wheel, figuring out what logic was behind
their design, trying to work around flaws in their design and
eventually coming up with something almost as good as the wheel I could
have designed and built in a fraction of the time.

OK, a commercial package is probably not like that and I may end up
buying a package should taking the free way end up being the costly way
after all.

Thanks very much for your input,
Peter.

Jan 16 '06 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.