Hello:

Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.

They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2, Frontpage
Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.

Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP breaking FP
extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was an FP 2002
and less problem I think.
1. That got fixed with FP 2003?

2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002 right?

The preface goes to the question:

3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of two or
more?

4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages in
the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies are being
made available by hosting services, so it would help to know if one
technology might break the other.

5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?

Dennis,
http://www.dennisys.com/

"Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello:
>
> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>
> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2, Frontpage
> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>
> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP breaking
> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was an FP
> 2002 and less problem I think.
> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>
> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002 right?
>
> The preface goes to the question:
>
> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of two
> or more?
>
> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages in
> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies are
> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know if one
> technology might break the other.
>
> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>
> Dennis,
> http://www.dennisys.com/


Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or 2002
extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.

Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this doesn't stop
you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself, it only
limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of them won't
work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board, search form
etc.

Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function fully, but
will work without them with limitations.

Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix" is
you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.

CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for Sharepoint)
technologies.

( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing (or
various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will be the
"next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace the
existing SE as we know them)).

I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for Linux/Unix;
and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.

PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers, I've
never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.

ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
inventing ASP for a rival operating system!

It depends on what your host supports.

Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is not
specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host; you'd have
to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what works with
Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.

I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed for
the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint for
Windows.

> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or 2002
> extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
-------------
That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site dialog
offers different types of supported technologies. As:
Remote Web Server Type:
FrontPage or SharePoint Services
WEBDAV
FTP
File system
My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these days,
offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types of
website maintenance.

That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for the
same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map, which
is based on categories, is still working.

Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like a
good strategy.

Thanks again,
Dennis.

"Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hello:
>>
>> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>>
>> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2, Frontpage
>> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>>
>> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP breaking
>> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was an FP
>> 2002 and less problem I think.
>> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>>
>> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
>> right?
>>
>> The preface goes to the question:
>>
>> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
>> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of two
>> or more?
>>
>> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages in
>> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies are
>> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know if one
>> technology might break the other.
>>
>> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>>
>> Dennis,
>> http://www.dennisys.com/
>
>
> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or 2002
> extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>
> Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this doesn't
> stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself, it
> only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of them
> won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board, search
> form etc.
>
> Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function fully,
> but will work without them with limitations.
>
> Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix" is
> you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
> enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
>
> CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
> ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
> Sharepoint) technologies.
>
> ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing (or
> various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will be
> the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace the
> existing SE as we know them)).
>
> I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for Linux/Unix;
> and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.
>
> PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers,
> I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
>
> ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
> inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
>
> It depends on what your host supports.
>
> Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is not
> specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host; you'd
> have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what works
> with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
>
> I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed for
> the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
> for Windows.
>
>

Forms, search and feedback require the extensions, and require that you
publish using http://
If you publish to an extended server using FTP, you either break the
extensions or FrontPage fails to publish all of the necessary related files.

This is normal operation and is not a bug.

The fact that HELM offers both publishing methods is due to not everyone
using FrontPage, as FrontPage
is the only one ( I think ) that has the capability of publishing using the
http protocol.


--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer




"Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>> 2002 extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
> -------------
> That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site dialog
> offers different types of supported technologies. As:
> Remote Web Server Type:
> FrontPage or SharePoint Services
> WEBDAV
> FTP
> File system
> My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these days,
> offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types of
> website maintenance.
>
> That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for the
> same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
> feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
> which is based on categories, is still working.
>
> Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like a
> good strategy.
>
> Thanks again,
> Dennis.
>
> "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Hello:
>>>
>>> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>>>
>>> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2, Frontpage
>>> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>>>
>>> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP breaking
>>> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was an
>>> FP 2002 and less problem I think.
>>> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>>>
>>> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
>>> right?
>>>
>>> The preface goes to the question:
>>>
>>> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
>>> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of two
>>> or more?
>>>
>>> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages
>>> in the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies
>>> are being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know
>>> if one technology might break the other.
>>>
>>> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>>>
>>> Dennis,
>>> http://www.dennisys.com/
>>
>>
>> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>> 2002 extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>>
>> Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this doesn't
>> stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself, it
>> only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of them
>> won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board, search
>> form etc.
>>
>> Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function fully,
>> but will work without them with limitations.
>>
>> Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix" is
>> you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
>> enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
>>
>> CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
>> ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
>> Sharepoint) technologies.
>>
>> ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing (or
>> various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will be
>> the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace
>> the existing SE as we know them)).
>>
>> I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
>> Linux/Unix; and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for
>> Windows.
>>
>> PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers,
>> I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
>>
>> ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
>> inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
>>
>> It depends on what your host supports.
>>
>> Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is not
>> specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host; you'd
>> have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what works
>> with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
>>
>> I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed for
>> the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
>> for Windows.
>>
>>
>
>

You either use http:// publish to a site with the extensions, or FTP to a
site without the extensions. You can't use both.

The forms and other web components that require extensions must be http
published, not FTPd, or you corrupt the extensions and the components do not
work.

If using FTP, the extensions will corrupt and the host must run a health
check and/or reinstall the extensions.
--
===
Tom [Pepper] Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
---
FrontPage Support:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/

About FrontPage 2003:
http://office.microsoft.com/home/off...tid=FX01085802
===
"Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
|> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
2002
| > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
| -------------
| That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site dialog
| offers different types of supported technologies. As:
| Remote Web Server Type:
| FrontPage or SharePoint Services
| WEBDAV
| FTP
| File system
| My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these days,
| offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types of
| website maintenance.
|
| That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for the
| same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
| feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
which
| is based on categories, is still working.
|
| Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like a
| good strategy.
|
| Thanks again,
| Dennis.
|
| "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| >
| > "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| >> Hello:
| >>
| >> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
| >>
| >> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2,
Frontpage
| >> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
| >>
| >> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP
breaking
| >> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was an
FP
| >> 2002 and less problem I think.
| >> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
| >>
| >> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
| >> right?
| >>
| >> The preface goes to the question:
| >>
| >> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
| >> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of
two
| >> or more?
| >>
| >> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages
in
| >> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies are
| >> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know if
one
| >> technology might break the other.
| >>
| >> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
| >>
| >> Dennis,
| >> http://www.dennisys.com/
| >
| >
| > Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
2002
| > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
| >
| > Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this doesn't
| > stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself, it
| > only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of them
| > won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board,
search
| > form etc.
| >
| > Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function fully,
| > but will work without them with limitations.
| >
| > Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix" is
| > you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
| > enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
| >
| > CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
| > ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
| > Sharepoint) technologies.
| >
| > ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing (or
| > various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will be
| > the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace
the
| > existing SE as we know them)).
| >
| > I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
Linux/Unix;
| > and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.
| >
| > PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers,
| > I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
| >
| > ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
| > inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
| >
| > It depends on what your host supports.
| >
| > Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is not
| > specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host; you'd
| > have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what works
| > with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
| >
| > I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed
for
| > the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
| > for Windows.
| >
| >
|
|

> The fact that HELM offers both publishing methods is due to not everyone
> using FrontPage

Key point.

Thank you for that. There are other people using this UI.
When I get deep into what I am doing, I forget that once in awhile.

D.

"Steve Easton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Forms, search and feedback require the extensions, and require that you
> publish using http://
> If you publish to an extended server using FTP, you either break the
> extensions or FrontPage fails to publish all of the necessary related
> files.
>
> This is normal operation and is not a bug.
>
> The fact that HELM offers both publishing methods is due to not everyone
> using FrontPage, as FrontPage
> is the only one ( I think ) that has the capability of publishing using
> the http protocol.
>
>
> --
> Steve Easton
> Microsoft MVP FrontPage
> 95isalive
> This site is best viewed............
> .......................with a computer
>
>
>
>
> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>>> 2002 extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>> -------------
>> That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site dialog
>> offers different types of supported technologies. As:
>> Remote Web Server Type:
>> FrontPage or SharePoint Services
>> WEBDAV
>> FTP
>> File system
>> My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these
>> days, offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both
>> types of website maintenance.
>>
>> That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for
>> the same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search
>> and feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
>> which is based on categories, is still working.
>>
>> Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like a
>> good strategy.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Dennis.
>>
>> "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Hello:
>>>>
>>>> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>>>>
>>>> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2,
>>>> Frontpage Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP
>>>> breaking FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about.
>>>> It was an FP 2002 and less problem I think.
>>>> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> The preface goes to the question:
>>>>
>>>> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
>>>> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of
>>>> two or more?
>>>>
>>>> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages
>>>> in the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies
>>>> are being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know
>>>> if one technology might break the other.
>>>>
>>>> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>>>>
>>>> Dennis,
>>>> http://www.dennisys.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>>> 2002 extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>>>
>>> Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this doesn't
>>> stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself, it
>>> only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of them
>>> won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board,
>>> search form etc.
>>>
>>> Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function fully,
>>> but will work without them with limitations.
>>>
>>> Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix" is
>>> you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
>>> enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
>>>
>>> CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
>>> ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
>>> Sharepoint) technologies.
>>>
>>> ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing (or
>>> various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will be
>>> the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace
>>> the existing SE as we know them)).
>>>
>>> I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
>>> Linux/Unix; and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for
>>> Windows.
>>>
>>> PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers,
>>> I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
>>>
>>> ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
>>> inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
>>>
>>> It depends on what your host supports.
>>>
>>> Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is not
>>> specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host; you'd
>>> have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what works
>>> with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
>>>
>>> I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed
>>> for the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and
>>> ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint for Windows.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Corruption may occur when the hosting service migrates the site from one
server to another using FTP?

D.

"Tom [Pepper] Willett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You either use http:// publish to a site with the extensions, or FTP to a
> site without the extensions. You can't use both.
>
> The forms and other web components that require extensions must be http
> published, not FTPd, or you corrupt the extensions and the components do
> not
> work.
>
> If using FTP, the extensions will corrupt and the host must run a health
> check and/or reinstall the extensions.
> --
> ===
> Tom [Pepper] Willett
> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
> ---
> FrontPage Support:
> http://www.frontpagemvps.com/
>
> About FrontPage 2003:
> http://office.microsoft.com/home/off...tid=FX01085802
> ===
> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> |> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
> 2002
> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
> | -------------
> | That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site
> dialog
> | offers different types of supported technologies. As:
> | Remote Web Server Type:
> | FrontPage or SharePoint Services
> | WEBDAV
> | FTP
> | File system
> | My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these
> days,
> | offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types of
> | website maintenance.
> |
> | That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for
> the
> | same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
> | feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
> which
> | is based on categories, is still working.
> |
> | Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like
> a
> | good strategy.
> |
> | Thanks again,
> | Dennis.
> |
> | "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> | >
> | > "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> | > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> | >> Hello:
> | >>
> | >> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
> | >>
> | >> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2,
> Frontpage
> | >> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
> | >>
> | >> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP
> breaking
> | >> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was
> an
> FP
> | >> 2002 and less problem I think.
> | >> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
> | >>
> | >> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
> | >> right?
> | >>
> | >> The preface goes to the question:
> | >>
> | >> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
> | >> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of
> two
> | >> or more?
> | >>
> | >> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those
> languages
> in
> | >> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies
> are
> | >> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know if
> one
> | >> technology might break the other.
> | >>
> | >> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
> | >>
> | >> Dennis,
> | >> http://www.dennisys.com/
> | >
> | >
> | > Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
> 2002
> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
> | >
> | > Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this
> doesn't
> | > stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself,
> it
> | > only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of
> them
> | > won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board,
> search
> | > form etc.
> | >
> | > Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function
> fully,
> | > but will work without them with limitations.
> | >
> | > Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix"
> is
> | > you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
> | > enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
> | >
> | > CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
> | > ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
> | > Sharepoint) technologies.
> | >
> | > ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing
> (or
> | > various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will
> be
> | > the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace
> the
> | > existing SE as we know them)).
> | >
> | > I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
> Linux/Unix;
> | > and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.
> | >
> | > PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers,
> | > I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
> | >
> | > ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
> | > inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
> | >
> | > It depends on what your host supports.
> | >
> | > Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is
> not
> | > specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host;
> you'd
> | > have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what
> works
> | > with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
> | >
> | > I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed
> for
> | > the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and
> ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
> | > for Windows.
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

Correct, if the site is using the FP extensions, then it must be published.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

"Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Corruption may occur when the hosting service migrates the site from one server to another using
> FTP?
>
> D.
>
> "Tom [Pepper] Willett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> You either use http:// publish to a site with the extensions, or FTP to a
>> site without the extensions. You can't use both.
>>
>> The forms and other web components that require extensions must be http
>> published, not FTPd, or you corrupt the extensions and the components do not
>> work.
>>
>> If using FTP, the extensions will corrupt and the host must run a health
>> check and/or reinstall the extensions.
>> --
>> ===
>> Tom [Pepper] Willett
>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>> ---
>> FrontPage Support:
>> http://www.frontpagemvps.com/
>>
>> About FrontPage 2003:
>> http://office.microsoft.com/home/off...tid=FX01085802
>> ===
>> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> |> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>> 2002
>> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>> | -------------
>> | That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site dialog
>> | offers different types of supported technologies. As:
>> | Remote Web Server Type:
>> | FrontPage or SharePoint Services
>> | WEBDAV
>> | FTP
>> | File system
>> | My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these days,
>> | offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types of
>> | website maintenance.
>> |
>> | That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for the
>> | same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
>> | feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
>> which
>> | is based on categories, is still working.
>> |
>> | Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like a
>> | good strategy.
>> |
>> | Thanks again,
>> | Dennis.
>> |
>> | "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> | >
>> | > "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> | > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> | >> Hello:
>> | >>
>> | >> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>> | >>
>> | >> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2,
>> Frontpage
>> | >> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>> | >>
>> | >> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP
>> breaking
>> | >> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was an
>> FP
>> | >> 2002 and less problem I think.
>> | >> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>> | >>
>> | >> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
>> | >> right?
>> | >>
>> | >> The preface goes to the question:
>> | >>
>> | >> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
>> | >> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of
>> two
>> | >> or more?
>> | >>
>> | >> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those languages
>> in
>> | >> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies are
>> | >> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know if
>> one
>> | >> technology might break the other.
>> | >>
>> | >> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>> | >>
>> | >> Dennis,
>> | >> http://www.dennisys.com/
>> | >
>> | >
>> | > Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>> 2002
>> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>> | >
>> | > Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this doesn't
>> | > stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself, it
>> | > only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of them
>> | > won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board,
>> search
>> | > form etc.
>> | >
>> | > Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function fully,
>> | > but will work without them with limitations.
>> | >
>> | > Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix" is
>> | > you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
>> | > enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
>> | >
>> | > CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
>> | > ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
>> | > Sharepoint) technologies.
>> | >
>> | > ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing (or
>> | > various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will be
>> | > the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will replace
>> the
>> | > existing SE as we know them)).
>> | >
>> | > I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
>> Linux/Unix;
>> | > and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.
>> | >
>> | > PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows servers,
>> | > I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
>> | >
>> | > ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
>> | > inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
>> | >
>> | > It depends on what your host supports.
>> | >
>> | > Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is not
>> | > specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host; you'd
>> | > have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what works
>> | > with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
>> | >
>> | > I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed
>> for
>> | > the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
>> | > for Windows.
>> | >
>> | >
>> |
>> |
>>
>>
>
>

The hosting service would never do it this way, though. They would just
copy over the network....

--
Murray
============

"Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Corruption may occur when the hosting service migrates the site from one
> server to another using FTP?
>
> D.
>
> "Tom [Pepper] Willett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> You either use http:// publish to a site with the extensions, or FTP to a
>> site without the extensions. You can't use both.
>>
>> The forms and other web components that require extensions must be http
>> published, not FTPd, or you corrupt the extensions and the components do
>> not
>> work.
>>
>> If using FTP, the extensions will corrupt and the host must run a health
>> check and/or reinstall the extensions.
>> --
>> ===
>> Tom [Pepper] Willett
>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>> ---
>> FrontPage Support:
>> http://www.frontpagemvps.com/
>>
>> About FrontPage 2003:
>> http://office.microsoft.com/home/off...tid=FX01085802
>> ===
>> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> |> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>> 2002
>> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>> | -------------
>> | That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site
>> dialog
>> | offers different types of supported technologies. As:
>> | Remote Web Server Type:
>> | FrontPage or SharePoint Services
>> | WEBDAV
>> | FTP
>> | File system
>> | My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these
>> days,
>> | offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types of
>> | website maintenance.
>> |
>> | That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for
>> the
>> | same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
>> | feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
>> which
>> | is based on categories, is still working.
>> |
>> | Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds like
>> a
>> | good strategy.
>> |
>> | Thanks again,
>> | Dennis.
>> |
>> | "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> | >
>> | > "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> | > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> | >> Hello:
>> | >>
>> | >> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>> | >>
>> | >> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2,
>> Frontpage
>> | >> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>> | >>
>> | >> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP
>> breaking
>> | >> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was
>> an
>> FP
>> | >> 2002 and less problem I think.
>> | >> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>> | >>
>> | >> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
>> | >> right?
>> | >>
>> | >> The preface goes to the question:
>> | >>
>> | >> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
>> | >> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination of
>> two
>> | >> or more?
>> | >>
>> | >> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those
>> languages
>> in
>> | >> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies
>> are
>> | >> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know
>> if
>> one
>> | >> technology might break the other.
>> | >>
>> | >> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>> | >>
>> | >> Dennis,
>> | >> http://www.dennisys.com/
>> | >
>> | >
>> | > Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>> 2002
>> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>> | >
>> | > Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this
>> doesn't
>> | > stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP itself,
>> it
>> | > only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of
>> them
>> | > won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board,
>> search
>> | > form etc.
>> | >
>> | > Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function
>> fully,
>> | > but will work without them with limitations.
>> | >
>> | > Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the "fix"
>> is
>> | > you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a FPSE
>> | > enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
>> | >
>> | > CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
>> | > ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
>> | > Sharepoint) technologies.
>> | >
>> | > ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing
>> (or
>> | > various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint will
>> be
>> | > the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will
>> replace
>> the
>> | > existing SE as we know them)).
>> | >
>> | > I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
>> Linux/Unix;
>> | > and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.
>> | >
>> | > PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows
>> servers,
>> | > I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
>> | >
>> | > ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go around
>> | > inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
>> | >
>> | > It depends on what your host supports.
>> | >
>> | > Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is
>> not
>> | > specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host;
>> you'd
>> | > have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what
>> works
>> | > with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
>> | >
>> | > I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are designed
>> for
>> | > the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and
>> ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
>> | > for Windows.
>> | >
>> | >
>> |
>> |
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks Murray:

I was thinking, but not expressing, from one hosting service to another,
which is what actually happened.
I could have been more clear about it. I do not know how the website got
from one service to another. I didn't expect that to happen, but it did.

D.

"Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The hosting service would never do it this way, though. They would just
> copy over the network....
>
> --
> Murray
> ============
>
> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Corruption may occur when the hosting service migrates the site from one
>> server to another using FTP?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> "Tom [Pepper] Willett" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> You either use http:// publish to a site with the extensions, or FTP to
>>> a
>>> site without the extensions. You can't use both.
>>>
>>> The forms and other web components that require extensions must be http
>>> published, not FTPd, or you corrupt the extensions and the components do
>>> not
>>> work.
>>>
>>> If using FTP, the extensions will corrupt and the host must run a health
>>> check and/or reinstall the extensions.
>>> --
>>> ===
>>> Tom [Pepper] Willett
>>> Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
>>> ---
>>> FrontPage Support:
>>> http://www.frontpagemvps.com/
>>>
>>> About FrontPage 2003:
>>> http://office.microsoft.com/home/off...tid=FX01085802
>>> ===
>>> "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> |> Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions or
>>> 2002
>>> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>>> | -------------
>>> | That goes to the heart of my question. The FP 2003 Remote Web Site
>>> dialog
>>> | offers different types of supported technologies. As:
>>> | Remote Web Server Type:
>>> | FrontPage or SharePoint Services
>>> | WEBDAV
>>> | FTP
>>> | File system
>>> | My hosting company, which uses HELM, which seems to be popular these
>>> days,
>>> | offers both FrontPage and FTP. That is, there is a UI for both types
>>> of
>>> | website maintenance.
>>> |
>>> | That being the case, that they are offering both types of services for
>>> the
>>> | same site, that would be a reason why some of my web forms, search and
>>> | feedback particularly, are not working? Strange though, the site map,
>>> which
>>> | is based on categories, is still working.
>>> |
>>> | Thanks for the CGI Perl advise. I get the meaning, and that sounds
>>> like a
>>> | good strategy.
>>> |
>>> | Thanks again,
>>> | Dennis.
>>> |
>>> | "Andrew Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> | news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> | >
>>> | > "Dennis D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> | > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> | >> Hello:
>>> | >>
>>> | >> Hosting services are in a fierce battle over services offerings.
>>> | >>
>>> | >> They are offering IIS 6, ASP.Net 2, MSSQL Server 2005, .Net 2,
>>> Frontpage
>>> | >> Extensions, Multimedia Streaming, and so on.
>>> | >>
>>> | >> Preface: I am using FP 2003, but I remember something about FTP
>>> breaking
>>> | >> FP extensions, but I don't remember what that was all about. It was
>>> an
>>> FP
>>> | >> 2002 and less problem I think.
>>> | >> 1. That got fixed with FP 2003?
>>> | >>
>>> | >> 2. Currently I am using FP extensions. The last extensions are 2002
>>> | >> right?
>>> | >>
>>> | >> The preface goes to the question:
>>> | >>
>>> | >> 3. Do all of these technologies play well together, or is there the
>>> | >> possibility of one breaking the other just by using a combination
>>> of
>>> two
>>> | >> or more?
>>> | >>
>>> | >> 4. What about CGI and Perl. Is it safe to code and use those
>>> languages
>>> in
>>> | >> the primarily Microsoft environment? Again, these are technologies
>>> are
>>> | >> being made available by hosting services, so it would help to know
>>> if
>>> one
>>> | >> technology might break the other.
>>> | >>
>>> | >> 5. Will using any of these technologies break the FP extensions?
>>> | >>
>>> | >> Dennis,
>>> | >> http://www.dennisys.com/
>>> | >
>>> | >
>>> | > Using FTP on *any* server with FPSE (whether it be FP97 extensions
>>> or
>>> 2002
>>> | > extensions (FP2003 uses the 2002 ext.) will (risk) break(ing) them.
>>> | >
>>> | > Using FP to publish by http: mode requires the extensions; this
>>> doesn't
>>> | > stop you using FTP (eg like WS_FTP) or the FTP built in to FP
>>> itself, it
>>> | > only limits the functions of FP that require the FPSE. ie. most of
>>> them
>>> | > won't work. especially guest book, form handler, discussion board,
>>> search
>>> | > form etc.
>>> | >
>>> | > Other things like shared borders do require the FPSE to function
>>> fully,
>>> | > but will work without them with limitations.
>>> | >
>>> | > Since FP 2003 uses the FP2002 extensions, I don't know what the
>>> "fix" is
>>> | > you've mentioned. The problem still exists; if you use FTP on a
>>> FPSE
>>> | > enabled server you risk corrupting the ext.
>>> | >
>>> | > CGI/Perl are primarily technologies for Linux/Unix.
>>> | > ASP/ASPX/.NET/SHAREPOINT are all Windows server (Server 2003 for
>>> | > Sharepoint) technologies.
>>> | >
>>> | > ( (I don't know if ASPX, .Net and Sharepoint are all the same thing
>>> (or
>>> | > various "generations" of the same thing?) Apparently Sharepoint
>>> will be
>>> | > the "next" version "server extensions" for Frontpage (or will
>>> replace
>>> the
>>> | > existing SE as we know them)).
>>> | >
>>> | > I think there is a some sort of versions/variations of ASP for
>>> Linux/Unix;
>>> | > and there is apparently a versions/variations of Perl for Windows.
>>> | >
>>> | > PHP is mainly for Linux; I don't know if that runs on Windows
>>> servers,
>>> | > I've never come across PHP scripts that run on windows servers.
>>> | >
>>> | > ASP was a Windows server technology, so I doubt Microsoft'd go
>>> around
>>> | > inventing ASP for a rival operating system!
>>> | >
>>> | > It depends on what your host supports.
>>> | >
>>> | > Again, most of your questions (except for the FP extension stuff) is
>>> not
>>> | > specifically FP related, and also might be specific to your host;
>>> you'd
>>> | > have to ask them what server side languages they suport, and what
>>> works
>>> | > with Frontpage extensions and what doesn't.
>>> | >
>>> | > I'd stick to the various server scripting languages that are
>>> designed
>>> for
>>> | > the primary OS i.e. Per/CGI & PHP for Linux/Unix and
>>> ASP/ASPX/Sharepoint
>>> | > for Windows.
>>> | >
>>> | >
>>> |
>>> |
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>