Re: A Perfect Web Site<uh oh>

Ted:
FrontPage 2000 does not declare a default DOCTYPE, you have to do that
yourself. You can add it to the template that gets used for all new pages
you create by doing this:
http://www.spiderwebwoman.com/tutorials/doctypesolution.asp
There's also a free addin at:
http://www.solution-shelf.com/FrontPage/ErrOmi/EO_FAQ.htm  that will detect
the absence of a DOCTYPE and prompt you to add one.



~ Kathleen Anderson
Spider Web Woman Designs
http://www.spiderwebwoman.com
email: kathleen(at)spiderwebwoman.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Temer" <temer(at)c-zone.net>
To: "HWGBASICS" <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: February 12, 2001 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: A Perfect Web Site<uh oh>


> Fuzzy:
>
> Although we talk in different tongues and worship different gods, I think
we
> are surprisingly close on this one. You mention 3.2 and I mention IE-5+.
For
> all practical purposes, they are pretty much of a much-ness.
>
> For example--If one was to set FrontPage 2000 to limit itself to features
> supported by BOTH Netscape, (prior to ver.6), and IE, it would in fact be
> working to more or less, the same standard as Validating to 3.2. In
> fact--unless set differently--I am told it inserts 3.2 in the DOCTYPE. Of
> course, A WHOLE BUNCH of the features in that program would be grayed out
as
> a result.
>
> I can not say this for a certainty for two reasons.
> 1. I am a poor man and have yet to upgrade to FP-2K. So I rely on hearsay
> evidence.
>
> 2. The versatility of FP allows one to set whatever DTD they want,
sometimes
> even, to something they shouldn't.
>
> So--Not having actually worked with this new version, I can not say
exactly
> how messing about on the insides will affect the result.
>
> But still-- I don't think we are very far apart on the resulting code and
> yes--it will probably show up rather nice in IE-5+.
>
> Will it work OK in Netscape 6?? I have not a clue. But I figure by the
time
> there is any significant number of NN-6 users out there, I'll be able to
> afford the next version of FrontPage which by that time, will have
> incorporated NN-6's idiosyncrasies.
>
> Best wishes
> Ted Temer
> temer(at)c-zone.net
>
>
> > Let me start by saying that I expect credit from the Gods of the Web for
> > keeping my mouth shut so far on this issue.
> >
> > In the last few days there have been some *really* excellent and thought
> > provoking posts on this (these) issues. Gregor's most recent post struck
a
> > nerve.
> >
> > He's right. He's right in ways some of you are not thinking about.
> > Accessibility in the "modern" sense, is but one sense we need to
consider.
> > In my post earlier today asking about the correlation between (actual)
> > validated pages and a lack of "pretty" graphical content. I mentioned
the
> > possibility that those coders knew something "we" didn't. Something "we"
> > may need to learn.
> >
> > Think about this, and please feel free to agree or disagree, either
> > publicly or privately:
> >
> > The Internet has actually been around a pretty long time. The "WWW" has
> > too. Waaay back when black and white screens were cool. And waaaaaaaay
> > before Napster and video.com.
> >
> > Have you ever heard the phrase: "The Internet is content driven."? Would
> > you *really* disagree?
> >
> > In the last few years the WWW has *exploded* in popularity. This
> popularity
> > has far outstripped browser manufacturers ability to create products
that
> > "meet the demand of the public".
> >
> > Don't those factors combined support a reasonable conclusion that the
> > "explosive growth" experienced is based on a content driven medium? One
> > that has been (to date) dreadfully lacking in Multi_media/JavaScript/CSS
> > support?
> >
> > The same content driven medium with which the browser manufactures "can
> > not" produce products fast enough for?
> >
> > Doesn't that also support the reasonable conclusion that MORE THAN
CONTENT
> > is _ nice _, as long as it ~in no way~ interferes with a viewer's
ability
> > to interact successfully with the content on the site?
> >
> > Can you argue that the INITIAL GROWTH explosion that occurred in a
market
> > markedly ~devoid~ of a Media Rich environment occurred because everyone
> > thought *someday* we could have .png/css/shtm/asp etc.?
> >
> > I think it is/was based on what is there *today* and what was there
> > *yesterday*. I want  it to grow, you want it to grow, but it's not
growing
> > because of mouseovers, frames, layers etc. It is growing because of the
> > content available, the INFORMATION if you will.
> >
> > Now, if I'm not completely off my rocker, that all put together should
> > support the reasonable conclusion that IF for some reason you do . . .
> need
> > . . . to add something besides unobtrusive extras to the content, it
> should
> > not even be considered without _ careful _ demographic research.
> Preferably
> > by an outside contractor. So that when AOHell folks and NN 6 folks start
> > filling the site owners mail box with "your site crashed my computer,
you
> > &**^%^$" messages, you do not feel the heat.
> >
> > 3.2 suddenly doesn't sound too bad to me as a professional tool.
> Especially
> > when it is accompanied by a link to the W3 validator.
> >
> > Fuzzy
> > <the thinker who thunked>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Captain F.M. O'Lary
> > webmaster(at)canopy.net
> > Copywight 2001 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA