form w/ include page - form appears more than once

[Steve Easton]

If the form is only being used on one page,
then there is no advantage to making it an include page.

That said, make sure when you are editing the form that
you edit the "include" page version and not the form that you see
when you open the page that includes the form.

hth

--
95isalive
This site is best viewed..................
...............................with a computer
In brief: The problem is that when I use a form with an "include page" and
make a change to the form, thereafter the form appears twice on the
webpage.

Using Win98SE and FP2000 w/ all updates/patches. All comments below
concern the website after it has been published to a host and FP extensions
are installed. The server the site is on is Apache version 1.3.28 (Unix).

I have done about 30 minutes of testing and have confirmed the following --
which I could not find in a google search. Some things at google wrere
close, but not quite the same problem. I also checked the MS KB with no
luck.

I created a small site. I created a plain contact form on one page and
that form is accessed w/ and include statement on another page. At first,
all appeared fine. Then, when I made a small change to the form -- field
validation -- the form started showing up twice, and before the second
incidence it has "[FrontPage Save Results Component]" -- which normally
only shows up in a browser preview before the site is published.

During the many things I tried and then published, sometimes the bracketed
text showed up, sometimes not. Sometimes when I tries making an additional
change to the form and then published, the form showed up three times on
the page.

I tried deleting the form and deleting the page that includes it from the
website and then republishing those pages. No help.

I tried reinstalling FP extensions and republishing my site. No help.

I deleted the include statement, typed in some text, published, deleted the
text and reinserted the include, then published, and the form again showed
up twice.

And, BTW, if I use the URL directly to the page the form is on, the form
only shows once.

The only solution to date is to put the form directly in the page I want it
to show in rather than including it.

Anyone have any comments about this? Suggestions as to what is going
wrong? Thanks.

 

[Igor]

In brief: The problem is that when I use a form with an "include page" and
make a change to the form, thereafter the form appears twice on the
webpage.

Using Win98SE and FP2000 w/ all updates/patches. All comments below
concern the website after it has been published to a host and FP extensions
are installed. The server the site is on is Apache version 1.3.28 (Unix).

I have done about 30 minutes of testing and have confirmed the following --
which I could not find in a google search. Some things at google wrere
close, but not quite the same problem. I also checked the MS KB with no
luck.

I created a small site. I created a plain contact form on one page and
that form is accessed w/ and include statement on another page. At first,
all appeared fine. Then, when I made a small change to the form -- field
validation -- the form started showing up twice, and before the second
incidence it has "[FrontPage Save Results Component]" -- which normally
only shows up in a browser preview before the site is published.

During the many things I tried and then published, sometimes the bracketed
text showed up, sometimes not. Sometimes when I tries making an additional
change to the form and then published, the form showed up three times on
the page.

I tried deleting the form and deleting the page that includes it from the
website and then republishing those pages. No help.

I tried reinstalling FP extensions and republishing my site. No help.

I deleted the include statement, typed in some text, published, deleted the
text and reinserted the include, then published, and the form again showed
up twice.

And, BTW, if I use the URL directly to the page the form is on, the form
only shows once.

The only solution to date is to put the form directly in the page I want it
to show in rather than including it.

Anyone have any comments about this? Suggestions as to what is going
wrong? Thanks.

 

[Igor]

If the form is only being used on one page,
then there is no advantage to making it an include page.

Well, that does make some sense -- and it is what i have resorted to now --
but I find it easier to use includes so that if I change the style of the
pages I do not have to mess with the form page. I also seem to have more
eluck w/ overall page layout this way.

Actually, in this instance the page is the "buy" page but we are not yet
ready to start selling our product so the page has a form that says "Let me
know when you start selling. Here is my e-mail address."

That said, make sure when you are editing the form that
you edit the "include" page version and not the form that you see
when you open the page that includes the form.

Good point. Yep, doin' that. Thanks

 

[Stefan B Rusynko]

There are some bugs in FP2002 & in the FP2002 SE related to shared borders & include pages
so make sure you (and your host) see & apply all appropriate patches from:

For info in Service Pack 1 & 2 for FP2002 / MSO XP - see:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];Q325671

For the Host/Server running the FP2002 SE

For Unix server problems on the FP2002 SE see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q299360
The latest FP SE for Unix that fix the problems
(FPSE 2000 1.4 patch and an FPSE 2002 SR 1.1 patch)
are at http://www.rtr.com/fpsupport

For NT server problems on the FP2002 SE see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q298827
For FrontPage Server Extension 2002 Update - see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q317296
and security patch
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-053.asp

TBMK the one w/ FP form includes on Unix servers may not be totally solved yet
IMHO best not to use FP forms as include pages

--



| On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:40:35 -0400, "Steve Easton" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >If the form is only being used on one page,
| >then there is no advantage to making it an include page.
| >
|
| Well, that does make some sense -- and it is what i have resorted to now --
| but I find it easier to use includes so that if I change the style of the
| pages I do not have to mess with the form page. I also seem to have more
| eluck w/ overall page layout this way.
|
| Actually, in this instance the page is the "buy" page but we are not yet
| ready to start selling our product so the page has a form that says "Let me
| know when you start selling. Here is my e-mail address."
|
| >That said, make sure when you are editing the form that
| >you edit the "include" page version and not the form that you see
| >when you open the page that includes the form.
|
| Good point. Yep, doin' that. Thanks

 

[Igor]

Thanks. That may well be the problem -- though the way MS describes it is
not the easiest to search for in the KB. IMO. Re my problem, they say,
"giving the appearance of duplicating data ". "Duplicating" is not a word
I would have thought of in this situation, even in retrospect, and I have
been doing computer Boolean searches (usually successfully) for just shy of
30 years. I have long felt that a weakness in the KB is that they do not
consider enough how pages are searched by the customer. I wonder if they
have any library science people in the KB department. (BTW, I am not a
librarian, but I think their skills are greatly underutilized in many parts
of US economy.)

I'll check with the webhost on this. And, I did just note at the end of
your post that the problem may not yet be solved. This is strange. I am
not a programmer of such things, so what the heck do I know. Yet, include
and forms are rather basic, longstanding parts of FP. And, for better or
worse for MS, Unix is widely installed, especially for many small
buisnesses and DIY people who use FP. One could say that any failure to
fix this promptly would suggest that MS does not place a high priority on
FP and its users.

Again, thanks.

-- Igor

 

[Steve Easton]

<imho>
The problem with searching knowledge bases
isn't the knowledge base, it's a matter of terminology
or lack of understanding on the users part,
of the correct technical terms which with to "search"

Example: If a person has no idea of what an "include"
page is or does, how do they search for it????
</imho>


--
95isalive
This site is best viewed..................
...............................with a computer


Thanks. That may well be the problem -- though the way MS describes it is
not the easiest to search for in the KB. IMO. Re my problem, they say,
"giving the appearance of duplicating data ". "Duplicating" is not a word
I would have thought of in this situation, even in retrospect, and I have
been doing computer Boolean searches (usually successfully) for just shy of
30 years. I have long felt that a weakness in the KB is that they do not
consider enough how pages are searched by the customer. I wonder if they
have any library science people in the KB department. (BTW, I am not a
librarian, but I think their skills are greatly underutilized in many parts
of US economy.)

 

[Igor]

<imho>
The problem with searching knowledge bases
isn't the knowledge base, it's a matter of terminology
or lack of understanding on the users part,
of the correct technical terms which with to "search"

Example: If a person has no idea of what an "include"
page is or does, how do they search for it????
</imho>

Well, w/ due respect, yes it is a terminology issue, as long as you do not
suggest that _any_ problem a customer has w/ a product is the customer's
fault. My objection is to the use of the word "duplicating" as the only
word connoting multiple instances of the include body showing up on the
main page. "Duplicating" is what is being done -- the action -- that is
wrong; it is not a description of what is wrongly appearing on the page.

In this instance, I was having trouble with the include function, so that
was in my search. I also tried, in various attempts: multiple, twice,
times, repeat, and some others.

IMO (no pretense of H), if MS wants its KB to be most helpful to its
customers, it should do a better job of cataloging the contents in the
context of the ways and means by which customers can access it. Granted, I
do not know FP very well, and maybe if I did I might have had more luck.
But I do have a broad knowledge of Windows and Word, and the KB is, again,
generally not up to the task. I often try the KB, then go to an NG, where
someone sends me a link for a KB article. Now one might say that that is
an sign of bad searching skills on my part. But, when I get to the article
via the provided link in the NG and look at it from a search standpoint, I
am baffled as to how they expected people to pull it up.

Also, invariably KB searches turn up stuff that has no applicability.
Often I will search for Win98 stuff and get back results that, as shown
w/in the article, only apply to Win 3.1.

Anyway, that is my rant. I don't have the best memory so I have long
depended on the kindness of searchable systems, starting with Dewey
Decimals in the library. I wish the KB were better. I suppose on the
priority list it is somewhere below testing systems for security
vulnerabilities.