Re: Failings of Front Page

At 11:58 AM 2/2/00 , Greg Scott wrote:

>I've never used Front Page, but my impression of it based on discussions that I think I
>remember from this list were that it wrote "fat" code that in many cases didn't validate.
>Am I remembering correctly?  I would prefer to just modify or rewrite his existing work
>using the non-WYSIWYG editor that I'm used to but would like to be able to provide some
>evidence or incentive that this is the better way to go (even though it might not be as
>cheap if he can find someone else to use F.P. and finish the job).

Greg,

FP has gotten better in the past few revisions, .. and the goal of being a WYSIWYG editor is a nice objective but coming from the MS camp means they do EVERYTHING they can (in the versions I have tested) to include any ActiveX or VBScript action/object that will require IE to display the site properly. FP does NOT do cross-browser code, ,, IME, at all.

DW is the best hybrid out there - you work WYSWIG, and can both see the code in real-time, tweak in real-time, .. OR launch your choice of external editors (we use MultiEdit as we have been using this editor since the DOS days). DW also gives you the choice of NN code, IE code, or cross-browser, and will TEST for compatiblity!

DW will not change any code unless you are editing that code/section. It will drop in any 'behaviors' that you define, .. *including* things like PHP (check out PHPWeave).

DW does not need a 'preview window' (the only option FP really has), .. once you get comfortable with the system (a day or two) the only thing you need a browser for is testing your server-side scripts.

         Lee
============================================
    Leland V. Lammert                                lvl(at)omnitec.net
       Chief Scientist                         Omnitec Corporation
   Network/Internet Consultants              www.omnitec.net
============================================

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA