469,572 Members | 1,447 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,572 developers. It's quick & easy.

Using Frontpage to go frameless

Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage? I've been thinking of using Frontpage to
take my web site, www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a
left framed frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?

I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page to all
other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions in the header,
and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could move my <script> code
into the <body>. What are the advantages/disadvantages of <head> script
code as opposed to <body> script code?

Side question. Many of my pages have external <script src="temp.js"> calls.
In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in
which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page
could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for
*.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?

Any advice is appreciated...Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #1
9 1233
Dennis Allen wrote:
Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage? I've been thinking of using Frontpage to
take my web site, www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a
left framed frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?
No I don't use FP, never will. But yes, its always a good idea to go
frameless and lose the problems frames introduce.
I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page to all
other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions in the header,
and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could move my <script> code
into the <body>. What are the advantages/disadvantages of <head> script
code as opposed to <body> script code?
Depends on your perspective. Where they need to be depends on the
script. It has been recommended here in this groups to put as much
script as you can at the end of the page, so that the beginning of the
page displays quicker. If you are calling a function, as the page loads,
then obviously that function has to be defined before you can call it,
thus it needs to be loaded prior to that.

Side question. Many of my pages have external <script src="temp.js"> calls.
In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in
which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page
could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for
*.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?


Wrap them only in <script type="text/javascript"></script> tags. The
rest are not needed and will cause your pages to be invalid HTML files
(not that I think FP can produce valid HTML to start with).
--
Randy

Jul 20 '05 #2

"Dennis Allen" <de****@dennisallen.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage? I've been thinking of using Frontpage to
take my web site, www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a
left framed frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?

I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page to all
other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions in the header, and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could move my <script> code
into the <body>. What are the advantages/disadvantages of <head> script
code as opposed to <body> script code?

Side question. Many of my pages have external <script src="temp.js"> calls. In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in
which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page
could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for
*.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?

Any advice is appreciated...Dennis


I dont know about FP, but is that insert/component/page not simply creating
an IFRAME (which is still a frame)? Have you looked at the HTML that comes
out?

Silvio Bierman
Jul 20 '05 #3
No, it's not a frame. Say I insert a header.htm component into every page
of my site. The <body> portion of header.htm is physically inserted into
every page. If you modify header.htm in FP, however, the changes will also
show up everywhere.

"Silvio Bierman" <sb******@idfix.nl> wrote in message
news:40*********************@news.xs4all.nl...

"Dennis Allen" <de****@dennisallen.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage? I've been thinking of using Frontpage to take my web site, www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a
left framed frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?

I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page to all other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions in the header,
and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could move my <script> code into the <body>. What are the advantages/disadvantages of <head> script
code as opposed to <body> script code?

Side question. Many of my pages have external <script src="temp.js">

calls.
In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in
which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page
could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for *.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?

Any advice is appreciated...Dennis


I dont know about FP, but is that insert/component/page not simply

creating an IFRAME (which is still a frame)? Have you looked at the HTML that comes
out?

Silvio Bierman

Jul 20 '05 #4

"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Hd********************@comcast.com...
Dennis Allen wrote:
I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page to all other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions in the header, and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could move my <script> code into the <body>. What are the advantages/disadvantages of <head> script
code as opposed to <body> script code?
Depends on your perspective. Where they need to be depends on the
script. It has been recommended here in this groups to put as much
script as you can at the end of the page, so that the beginning of the
page displays quicker. If you are calling a function, as the page loads,
then obviously that function has to be defined before you can call it,
thus it needs to be loaded prior to that.

Well, the functions I have wouldn't start until launched with a <body
onload>. The problem is that onload doesn't doesn't wait for all external
js files to load.
Side question. Many of my pages have external <script src="temp.js"> calls. In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in
which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page
could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for *.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?


Wrap them only in <script type="text/javascript"></script> tags. The
rest are not needed and will cause your pages to be invalid HTML files
(not that I think FP can produce valid HTML to start with).

Well, I want to get away from external js files. I have seen a <body
onload="xload()"> execute before a js file had a chance to load. Maybe that
new FP2003 dynamic web template feature can help...Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #5
Dennis Allen wrote:

<--snip-->
In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in
which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page
could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks
for
*.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?


Wrap them only in <script type="text/javascript"></script> tags. The
rest are not needed and will cause your pages to be invalid HTML files
(not that I think FP can produce valid HTML to start with).


Well, I want to get away from external js files. I have seen a <body
onload="xload()"> execute before a js file had a chance to load. Maybe that
new FP2003 dynamic web template feature can help...Dennis


Don't call it as a .js file, take each of your .js files and add the
opening script tag at the beginning, the closing script tag at the end,
so that they look like this:

<script type="text/javascript">
//contents of .js file here
</script>

Save it with an .htm extension.

Then have FP include it. When it does that, it becomes part of the html
document sent to the browser:

some page stuff here
<script.....>
</script>
more page stuff here.
The easiest way to see this is to test it by making the template,
include the .htm file, then view what the browser gets.


--
Randy

Jul 20 '05 #6

"Dennis Allen" <de****@dennisallen.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
No, it's not a frame. Say I insert a header.htm component into every page
of my site. The <body> portion of header.htm is physically inserted into
every page. If you modify header.htm in FP, however, the changes will also show up everywhere.

"Silvio Bierman" <sb******@idfix.nl> wrote in message
news:40*********************@news.xs4all.nl...

"Dennis Allen" <de****@dennisallen.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage? I've been thinking of using Frontpage to take my web site, www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a left framed frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?
I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page to all other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions in the

header,
and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could move my <script> code into the <body>. What are the advantages/disadvantages of <head> script code as opposed to <body> script code?

Side question. Many of my pages have external <script src="temp.js">

calls.
In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> in which xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/page could bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for *.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?

Any advice is appreciated...Dennis


I dont know about FP, but is that insert/component/page not simply

creating
an IFRAME (which is still a frame)? Have you looked at the HTML that comes out?

Silvio Bierman



OK, got it. Strange way of dealing with HTML. It will lead to such messy
issues you are confronted with. A complete HTML page can not be inserted
transparently inside another HTML page. Simple HTML fragments could but
these would then be designed with embedding in various pages in mind.

Silvio Bierman
Jul 20 '05 #7
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:00:02 -0500, Dennis Allen <de****@dennisallen.com>
wrote:
Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage?
Not personally. It's much easier to write valid code with a basic text
editor than it is FrontPage.
I've been thinking of using Frontpage to take my web site,
www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a left framed
frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?
It depends how you intend to replace it. You could probably migrate to a
CSS-based menu system where it provides the positioning in place of the
frame. The W3C uses such a system, however they don't use JavaScript with
it.
I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page
to all other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions
in the header, and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could
move my <script> code into the <body>. What are the
advantages/disadvantages of <head> script code as opposed to <body>
script code?
My impression[1] is that scripts placed in the head of the document are
loaded and parsed before the body is rendered. That would guarantee the
availability of the script to the rest of the document. However, there is
no mention in the HTML specification of how scheduling should be
implemented. I wouldn't know where to look in the RFCs for relevant
information (a simple search returned either too many (Google), or no
results (RFC archives)).
Side question. Many of my pages have external
<script src="temp.js"> calls. In fact, a couple of pages I have to
create a <body onload="xload()"> in which xload() checks to make
sure all the temp.js functions are loaded before proceeding. Now it
seems to me that the FP insert/component/page could bypass this
need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for *.htm
files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?


If 'my impression' above is correct, then there is no need. Just place the
SCRIPT elements in the head of the document. If it isn't, select the code
and paste it into SCRIPT elements.

As a matter of principle, please remove the "Valid HTML 4.01" logo from
your site. You have not met the requirements, so you don't have the cause,
or the right, to claim otherwise.

Mike

[1] Read: I haven't tested it, nor read that it is true. It is a casual
observation.

--
Michael Winter
M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid (replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply)
Jul 20 '05 #8
Thanks. I'll try it...Dennis

"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:14********************@comcast.com...
Dennis Allen wrote:

<--snip-->
In fact, a couple of pages I have to create a <body onload="xload()"> inwhich xload() checks to make sure all the temp.js functions are loaded
before proceeding. Now it seems to me that the FP insert/component/pagecould bypass this need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks


for
*.htm files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?

Wrap them only in <script type="text/javascript"></script> tags. The
rest are not needed and will cause your pages to be invalid HTML files
(not that I think FP can produce valid HTML to start with).


Well, I want to get away from external js files. I have seen a <body
onload="xload()"> execute before a js file had a chance to load. Maybe that new FP2003 dynamic web template feature can help...Dennis


Don't call it as a .js file, take each of your .js files and add the
opening script tag at the beginning, the closing script tag at the end,
so that they look like this:

<script type="text/javascript">
//contents of .js file here
</script>

Save it with an .htm extension.

Then have FP include it. When it does that, it becomes part of the html
document sent to the browser:

some page stuff here
<script.....>
</script>
more page stuff here.
The easiest way to see this is to test it by making the template,
include the .htm file, then view what the browser gets.


--
Randy

Jul 20 '05 #9
You're right. The site is no longer html 4.01 valid. I'll remove the logo
and get the site revalidated asap...Dennis

"Michael Winter" <M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote in message
news:op**************@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:00:02 -0500, Dennis Allen <de****@dennisallen.com>
wrote:
Hi. Anyone here use FrontPage?


Not personally. It's much easier to write valid code with a basic text
editor than it is FrontPage.
I've been thinking of using Frontpage to take my web site,
www.dennisallen.com, and go frameless. Since I have a left framed
frame.htm with lots of javascipt code, is this a good idea?


It depends how you intend to replace it. You could probably migrate to a
CSS-based menu system where it provides the positioning in place of the
frame. The W3C uses such a system, however they don't use JavaScript with
it.
I could use FP insert/components/web page to add my frame.htm page
to all other pages. But frame.htm has lots of javascript functions
in the header, and needs onload= to start them. I suppose I could
move my <script> code into the <body>. What are the
advantages/disadvantages of <head> script code as opposed to <body>
script code?


My impression[1] is that scripts placed in the head of the document are
loaded and parsed before the body is rendered. That would guarantee the
availability of the script to the rest of the document. However, there is
no mention in the HTML specification of how scheduling should be
implemented. I wouldn't know where to look in the RFCs for relevant
information (a simple search returned either too many (Google), or no
results (RFC archives)).
Side question. Many of my pages have external
<script src="temp.js"> calls. In fact, a couple of pages I have to
create a <body onload="xload()"> in which xload() checks to make
sure all the temp.js functions are loaded before proceeding. Now it
seems to me that the FP insert/component/page could bypass this
need altogether, but insert/component/page only asks for *.htm
files. What, do I want to convert my *.js files to *.htm files,
wraping <html><body><script></script></body></html> around them?


If 'my impression' above is correct, then there is no need. Just place the
SCRIPT elements in the head of the document. If it isn't, select the code
and paste it into SCRIPT elements.

As a matter of principle, please remove the "Valid HTML 4.01" logo from
your site. You have not met the requirements, so you don't have the cause,
or the right, to claim otherwise.

Mike

[1] Read: I haven't tested it, nor read that it is true. It is a casual
observation.

--
Michael Winter
M.******@blueyonder.co.invalid (replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply)

Jul 20 '05 #10

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by Bruce A. Julseth | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by C T | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Jim Heavey | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.