471,570 Members | 935 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,570 software developers and data experts.

includes

I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml. I am very excited about how easy this
seems to be, how clean the code is and the versatility of the
language, I have one question at present.

I have found out how to use includes using

<!--#include virtual="anyfilehere" -->

My question: Is the code inserted exactly as in the include file in
the place where the include is requested or are there some surprises?

www.richardfisher.com

Sep 4 '07 #1
22 1886
On 4 Sep, 16:17, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.comwrote:
www.richardfisher.com
OK, I've had a look now. That web page is vile, throw it away and
start again.

The markup is an unholy mess of M$oft namespaces, abused XML, 3.2
presentational markup and the usual garbage we associate with M$oft
Orifice output. I didn't actually know FrontPlague was this bad! I
thought only Word made markup _quite_ this bogus.

It also looks terrible. Text blocks overlapping each other all over
the place. I presume it's due to M$oft's usual garbage of absolute-
positioned CSS with pixel dimensions.

Do yourself a favour: get a copy of "Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML"
and a simple text editor. When you've read that, start on Lie & Bos'
"Cascading Style Sheets". Keep reading the newsgroups.

Sep 4 '07 #2
Helpful person wrote:
I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml.
Let me keep some light of hope.
The page you linked to is still supposed to be in its FrontPage tag soup
form (September 4 2007).
Right?

It's not the "clean XHTML code". Okay?

PS: This page gave me ideas that I could use if ever there's an "HTML
obfuscation contest".
And these ideas could apply to valid, non-conforming, HTML code.

--
You can contact me at <ta*****************@yahoDELETETHATo.fr>
Sep 4 '07 #3
On Sep 4, 4:33 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.frwrote:
Helpful person wrote:
I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml.

Let me keep some light of hope.
The page you linked to is still supposed to be in its FrontPage tag soup
form (September 4 2007).
Right?

It's not the "clean XHTML code". Okay?

PS: This page gave me ideas that I could use if ever there's an "HTML
obfuscation contest".
And these ideas could apply to valid, non-conforming, HTML code.

--
You can contact me at <tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahoDELETETHATo.fr>
FrontPage creates very verbose and unreadable (to me) code. To make
things worse it's probably easier to learn html xhtml than FrontPage
with all it's bugs and ommissions.

www.richardfisher.com

Sep 4 '07 #4
On 2007-09-04, Helpful person <rr****@yahoo.comwrote:
[...]
FrontPage creates very verbose and unreadable (to me) code. To make
things worse it's probably easier to learn html xhtml than FrontPage
with all it's bugs and ommissions.
You are right, and I'm very glad to see you've figured it out for
yourself.

I keep saying this, but no-one believes me because they think I don't
understand newbies.
www.richardfisher.com
Sep 4 '07 #5
Helpful person wrote:
FrontPage creates very verbose and unreadable (to me) code. To make
things worse it's probably easier to learn html xhtml than FrontPage
with all it's bugs and ommissions.
Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
things, don't you?
Sep 4 '07 #6
On 9/4/2007 8:17 AM, Helpful person wrote:
I have written my web site using Microsoft FrontPage and have decided
to rewrite it in strict xhtml. I am very excited about how easy this
seems to be, how clean the code is and the versatility of the
language, I have one question at present.

I have found out how to use includes using

<!--#include virtual="anyfilehere" -->

My question: Is the code inserted exactly as in the include file in
the place where the include is requested or are there some surprises?

www.richardfisher.com
I do all my pages in HTML 4.01. I do them manually in Wordpad, and the
HTML just seems to flow out of my fingertips and into my keyboard. So I
can't help you with XHMTL.

However, I do use SSIs. I just now determined that your server is
indeed Apache, which does support SSIs.

I suggest that the files you wish to include not have .html or .htm at
the end (file extensions). Then, Apache will not try to serve them as
Web pages if they are requested by mistake.

The Web page that contains the <!--#include virtual="anyfilehere" -->
declaration needs to be executable for Apache to perform the SSI
operation.

Apache will take the cited file and insert it as if you had manually
inserted it before uploading the Web page to the Web server. A user
will not be able to determine that this has happened except that the
time-stamp on the Web page will equal the time at which Apache served
it, not the time when it was uploaded to the server or when it was last
modified.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997
Sep 4 '07 #7
On Sep 4, 5:58 pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
>
Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
things, don't you?
Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.

www.richardfisher.com

Sep 5 '07 #8
..oO(Helpful person)
>On Sep 4, 5:58 pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
>>
Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
things, don't you?

Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.
Maybe XHTML 2 in some years. But this is incompatible with XHTML 1 ...

Micha
Sep 5 '07 #9
On 5 Sep, 12:34, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.comwrote:
Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.
If you can't appreciate the very real problems in using it, then you
really need to do some more research before you dive in.

Sep 5 '07 #10
Helpful person <rr****@yahoo.comwrites:
I see no reason not to write strict XHTML
Search the group archives. You'll see plenty of reasons to avoid XHTML,
most of which can be summarized as "pathetic browser support."
(especially as I am starting from scratch)
On the other hand, that's a damn good reason to use a strict DTD. :-)
as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.
Eventually maybe, but not soon - even the W3C has acknowledged this, and
re-chartered the HTML working group back in March:

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>

The WG produced the first working draft for HTML 5 a couple of weeks ago:

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/>

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Sep 5 '07 #11
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:34:46 GMT
Helpful person scribed:
On Sep 4, 5:58 pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
>>
Very true, but you do understand that HTML and XHTML are two different
things, don't you?

Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.
It won't. Not the xhtml you see today (-not even xhtml2.)

Html is the way to go for the present. You can either believe that or not,
but there's the truth, nonetheless.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Sep 6 '07 #12
Helpful person wrote:
Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML (especially
as I am starting from scratch) as this will probably (eventually) be
the standard to replace HTML.
XHTML was an unfortunate deviation from HTML and is now a dead end. I
was one of the many who jumped on the XHTML bandwagon, and now I am
developing in HTML 4.01 Strict.

You can search the archives of this group for links to sites that
explain the problems with XHTML.
Sep 6 '07 #13
Thanks for all the useful replies.

www.richardfisher.com

(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)
Sep 6 '07 #14
Helpful person wrote:
(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)
<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardfisher .com%2F>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Sep 6 '07 #15
On Sep 6, 1:04 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
Helpful person wrote:
(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)

<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardf...>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Which browser are you using? I see no problems on my Windows XP
machine running the latest IE, Mozilla and netscape Browsers.

www.richardfisher.com

Sep 6 '07 #16
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:27:08 +0200, Helpful person <rr****@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:04 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
>Helpful person wrote:
(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)

<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardf...>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Which browser are you using? I see no problems on my Windows XP
machine running the latest IE, Mozilla and netscape Browsers.
The only browser I DON'T have any problems with it are Opera 9 & MSIE7,
because they decided to scale all HTML elements up or down with a
font-resize. MSIE 6, Netscape, Firefox, they all have a screwed up site on
a bigger font-size.

--
Rik Wasmus
Sep 6 '07 #17
Helpful person wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>Helpful person wrote:
>>(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)

<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardf...>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

Which browser are you using? I see no problems on my Windows XP
machine running the latest IE, Mozilla and netscape Browsers.
Firefox. Press Control-Plus a couple of times.

See this, too: http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Sep 6 '07 #18
On 9/6/2007 1:27 PM, Helpful person wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:04 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
>Helpful person wrote:
>>(By the way, I reference my website not because I am proud of its
structure but becaue the links help my ranking with the search
engines.)
<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardf...>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Which browser are you using? I see no problems on my Windows XP
machine running the latest IE, Mozilla and netscape Browsers.

www.richardfisher.com
I'm using SeaMonkey 1.1.4, which has the same HTML rendering engine
(gecko 1.8.1.x) as Firefox 2. Thus, what I see should be the same as
seen with Firefox 2.

What I do see is the word "Consultants" in the header "Richard Fisher
Engineering Consultants" overlaying the words "Professional Services".
I also see three gray sidebars on the right but only if I scroll
horizontally (a major annoyance). I also see blue and green text on a
pale blue background; while I have no trouble with this, I'm not sure a
color-blind person can read it.

The W3C validator at <http://validator.w3.org/says there are 18 HTML
errors. They might not be significant. However, this means that how
your page is viewed on different browsers is unpredictable. (Garbage in
= garbage out.)

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997
Sep 7 '07 #19
On Sep 6, 1:04 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
>
<lol I'd fix it first...

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.richardf...>

Did you see the screenshot I posted in one of your threads several
months ago?http://k75s.home.att.net/show/richardfisher.jpg

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Thanks ever so much for showing me the screenshot. I had never tested
the display with Mozilla or Netscape with increased character size.
It is now fixed.

As far as validating the web site, it's just about impossible with
FrontPage. That is one of the reasons I'm rewriting in HTML.

www.richardfisher.com
Sep 7 '07 #20

Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote in
<lK******************************@comcast.com>:
Helpful person wrote:
>Yes. However, I see no reason not to write strict XHTML
(especially as I am starting from scratch) as this will
probably (eventually) be the standard to replace HTML.

XHTML was an unfortunate deviation from HTML and is now a
dead end.
I don't feel 'unfortunate deviation' is a proper
characterisation (matter of taste to an extent, of
course). 'Excellent idea killed off by vendor indifference'
sounds more like it to me.
I was one of the many who jumped on the XHTML bandwagon,
and now I am developing in HTML 4.01 Strict.
Actually, XHTML 1.0 has its uses. You cannot serve it to
end-user in www context, of course, but it can be highly
useful as a backend or intermediate representation of your
markup.

--
This chickenus crossed the roadus while yodelingus.
Sep 7 '07 #21
Helpful person wrote:
>
Thanks ever so much for showing me the screenshot. I had never tested
the display with Mozilla or Netscape with increased character size.
It is now fixed.
Maybe at your house it is, but it's not on the Web.
Modified: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:34:18 PM
>
As far as validating the web site, it's just about impossible with
FrontPage.
Not really, but it helps to watch what you ask FP to do for you. The
last version I had (FP2002?) wasn't very CSS-aware, so it wanted to add
a bunch of deprecated attributes to my layout tables...
That is one of the reasons I'm rewriting in HTML.
It's a pity you don't have an editor to do that with. ;-)
>
http://www.richardfisher.com

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
Sep 7 '07 #22
Rik Wasmus wrote:
>
The only browser I DON'T have any problems with it are Opera 9 & MSIE7,
because they decided to scale all HTML elements up or down with a
font-resize.
Opera has always done *page* zoom, not text zoom. IE7 does both, but you
are apparently just using its page zoom.
MSIE 6, Netscape, Firefox, they all have a screwed up site on
a bigger font-size.
That is not a problem with the browser. It means your design is broken.

--
Berg
Sep 7 '07 #23

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

13 posts views Thread by Tim Tyler | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Joe Mowry | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Generic Usenet Account | last post: by
12 posts views Thread by tshad | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by William F. Zachmann | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Jeff | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Ron | last post: by
1 post views Thread by JRough | last post: by
reply views Thread by lumer26 | last post: by
reply views Thread by Vinnie | last post: by
reply views Thread by lumer26 | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.