FP2003 and DWT requirements?

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi,

Something that was missing from Frontpage for a long time was the
ability to create templates with non-editable areas. This is something
DreamWeaver had from early versions.

My question is, what are the requirements to make this work? Does it work:

a) Without any special server software
b) With any version of Frontpage Extensions including UNIX
c) Any version of Windows servers provided they have exatra software
d) Only on Windows Server 2003 with Sharepoint services

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

No special software required, other then having FP2003

Auto updating not support under the FP extensions, only in disk-based web or under Windows 2003
SharePoint Services for autoupdating. Manually under the FP extensions.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WebMaster Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
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.
==============================================

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Thanks Thomas,

Can you clarify what "Auto Updating" means? When you say "manually under the
FP extensions", do you mean you have to press a button, or more specifically
that you'd have to copy and overwrite every file?

Gerry Hickman (London UK)

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Auto Updating = When using the DWT under a disk-based web or WSS and you make a change to the DWT,
the changes will be applied to all pages using the DWT automatically.

Manual Updating = Under the FP extensions requires that you open each page using the DWT and then
apply the updated DWT.

Prior versions of FP will not honor the DWT, so FP2003 must always be used.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WebMaster Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, WebCircle, MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
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.
==============================================

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

Inline

Hi,

Something that was missing from Frontpage for a long time was the ability
to create templates with non-editable areas. This is something DreamWeaver
had from early versions.

My question is, what are the requirements to make this work? Does it work:

a) Without any special server software

FP 2003 is the only software required

b) With any version of Frontpage Extensions including UNIX

DWTs are processed locally like those used by Dresaweaver. Note it is
frequently posset to use a Dreamweaver DWT in FP 2003 simply by sassy if
again in FP 2003

c) Any version of Windows servers provided they have exatra software

Irrelevant since DWTs work locally- you can 't use them when working "live
"on the server.

d) Only on Windows Server 2003 with Sharepoint services

See aboveI for more info download the free ebook at:
http://starttoweb.com/catalog/index...id=186&zenid=81ef6ac72d4df55d68118147b9ebf9b2

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for info, I think I need to clarify the purpose.

We are a corporate with a big budget. We need a way for our web authors
to be able to "contribute" changes to our website and those chnages need
to occur in real-time as soon as they hit "save". Our consultant
recommended Macromedia Contribute for this purpose, but we already have
a good system working with Frontpage 2000 and associated extensions. It
works on both Windows and UNIX.

The reason we are looking at Frontpage 2003, is that our webmaster wants
to use "templates" in such a way that when he adjusts the template,
everything will magically be changed on the server too.

If the templates don't automatically replicate changes to the server,
I'm confused regarding their purpose?

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

With the additional information I don't think templates as used in DWTs will
server your purpose because they are locally run. Contribute, ContentSeed,
and other CMS programs would better suit your update needs. Dreamweaver
templates wouldn't do it either.

DWTs are good for the individual or small company. When ASP.NET 2.0 is
released the master pages there is probably closer to what you are looking
for. A DWT will work but it would require your webmaster to download the
complete site with the updates by the various departments then change the
template on his machine and let it update all the pages. Then republish to
the server. The 'contributor' would not be involved in those sorts of
updates which I would expect to be infrequent, especially if navigation (the
section most likely to change) is done as a server side include.

Depending on the type of changes that would be made to the DWT it might
still be an option when combined with includes (SSI would probably be best
in this situation) and CSS but I couldn't say without a lot more information
on the current set-up.

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS FrontPage MVP
http://mvp.wiserways.com
http://starttoweb.com
Online instructor led web design training in FrontPage,
Dreamweaver and more!
Next Session June 26th

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi,

I've looked into this in more detail, and it turns out that to use DWT
_does_ require Windows Server 2003, it does not work on UNIX, nor Apache.
The way DWT is sold, is that it replaces shared borders and offers a way to
manage navigation structures separately to the static pages created by
Authors. Obviously it needs to work automatically to be of any use at all,
it's moronic (in the help file) to suggest opening all pages in Frontpage
first, or selecting them first and using "manual update", or "publish first
to a disk-based web" first.

Terminology

"Web" does not mean browsing a "Disk based web" on a stand-alone computer,
it means creating a web-site that is served over HTTP, either an internet or
intranet. It's absurd that these definitions even need to be made, and only
occurs because we're on Microsoft newsgroups. If we were on a Macromedia or
Linux newsgroup, everyone would know that a website is served from a web
server over HTTP. (I'm making this clear following earlier comments in this
thread).

Here's an article that demonstrates how badly this has been implemented:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/840572/

At the foot of that page is another link that's just as bad.

The way I'm reading it, is that if you want it to work properly, you need to
use Windows SharePoint Services, and this is only available on Windows
Server 2003. I don't see any (sensible) work-around for a development
workstation, or anyone who wants to use Frontpage 2003 with other servers.

I suggest this is a short-sighted strategy for Frontpage, which will limit
it's appeal, and it's unnecessary because all the technology exists in other
servers, it's just that Microsoft has decided to tie it to one system.

 

[Jim Cheshire]

Hi,

I've looked into this in more detail, and it turns out that to use DWT
_does_ require Windows Server 2003, it does not work on UNIX, nor
Apache. The way DWT is sold, is that it replaces shared borders and
offers a way to manage navigation structures separately to the static
pages created by Authors. Obviously it needs to work automatically to
be of any use at all, it's moronic (in the help file) to suggest
opening all pages in Frontpage first, or selecting them first and
using "manual update", or "publish first to a disk-based web" first.

Gerry,

Not really. You can use DWT on a disk-based Web site without problems. In
fact, that's how Dreamweaver implements the functionality.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Jim,

Did you actually read the post? We know it works on "disk based webs",
but real web sites are NOT "disk based webs". This isn't about how
Dreamweaver implements DWT, it's about whether Microsoft have any vision
above and beyond that of Macromedia - the answer is that they don't.

The whole point of the earlier Frontpage extensions is that they work on
both Windows and UNIX observing permissions of both file systems and can
publish through HTTP and firewalls.

A "disk based web" is NOT a real website, not for a world facing web
presence, nor for a corporate intranet.

 

[Jim Cheshire]

Did you actually read the post? We know it works on "disk based webs",
but real web sites are NOT "disk based webs". This isn't about how
Dreamweaver implements DWT, it's about whether Microsoft have any
vision above and beyond that of Macromedia - the answer is that they
don't.
A "disk based web" is NOT a real website, not for a world facing web
presence, nor for a corporate intranet.

Yes, I read the post. No one would suggest that a disk-based Web site be
used in production. DWT is a design-time feature. Once you have the site
created, you then publish it to a Web server.

I mentioned Dreamweaver because in Dreamweaver, there isn't a concept of a
server-based Web site. Everything is disk-based. The method works quite
well whether in FrontPage or Dreamweaver.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Jim,

Yes, I read the post. No one would suggest that a disk-based Web site be
used in production. DWT is a design-time feature. Once you have the site
created, you then publish it to a Web server.

It's not a "design time feature", it's sold as "dynamic" or in Microsoft
language "Active". It's of zero use at design time, it only becomes
useful when you can adjust the non-editable parts of big websites and
when those changes replicate automatically.

Anyone would think we were talking about something complicated here,
we're not, all it takes is two tiny ATL DLLs to implement this, but
Microsoft have deliberately not implemented it. My guess the reason is
to try and get all Frontpage users to buy production licenses for
Windows Server 2003 and then use the bloated "Sharepoint". Not to
mention all the hosting services that will NOT provide Sharepoint? I
guess they want everyone making "my first homepage" on MSN?? The whole
thing is a joke.

Luckily I don't have to worry about it as I'm on Volume Licensing, but I
still see it as a step backwards for Frontpage.

The non-bloatware, and x-platform solution is probably to implement a
parser on the server that dynamically and auto-updates any pages in the
web that have changed using calls to traditional FP server extensions,
but I have not investigated this yet, it would mean reverse engineering
the client protocols if one wanted to be able to click buttons within
Frontpage though...

 

[Jim Cheshire]

Hi Jim,


It's not a "design time feature", it's sold as "dynamic" or in
Microsoft language "Active". It's of zero use at design time, it only
becomes useful when you can adjust the non-editable parts of big
websites and when those changes replicate automatically.

Gerry,

I think this whole thing stems from a lack of understanding on your part.
DWTs are a design-time feature. You apply DWTs at design-time. Nothing at
all happens at runtime or when the page is browsed. Therefore, they are
perfectly suitable for a disk-based Web site scenario. Create your pages,
apply your DWT, tweak the DWT as you see fit, and then publish the site to
your production server. If you need to modify the DWT (and hence all pages
attached to it), simply modify the DWT and then publish the site again.

Your complaint is that DWTs don't work with FPSE. That is a valid
complaint, but don't pollute the argument by making statements that simply
aren't true.

By the way, the reason that this doesn't work with FPSE is that there are no
new FPSE for FrontPage 2003. That's why it only works with WSS in a
disk-based scenario. Microsoft is attempting to move away from a reliance
on Server Extensions largely based on user feedback.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

Gerry,

You seem to assume that the use of the word "dynamic" means it must occur on
the server. As Jim Cheshire says Microsoft has been moving away from the
proprietary FPSE required features because people have complained (rightly
so) that the internet is not a proprietary system. I expect there will be
less and less reliance on proprietary extensions in the future as FrontPage
becomes even more of a professional as opposed to a hobbyist's tool.

DWTs are 'dynamic' because in your local website (Disk Based Web in FP terms
or 'local site' in Dreamweaver terms) pages attached to a DWT will be
updated automatically when you save a template you have been editing.

All of this is done at the design time. This is true whether you use
Dreamweaver or FrontPage. For server side updating you need to use server
side technology which is depending on the operating system and what script
or code interpreters are installed. That usually means ASP, PHP, ASP.NET or
could be JSP or CFM. Neither Macromedia nor Microsoft have chosen to include
server side update functionality for multiple server platforms which should
tell you something yet both use the same term 'dynamic' because the design
time updates are without additional intervention. To make them take effect
on your production server you must upload the changed pages.

When ASP.NET 2.0 is released then 'master pages' will be an option. Whether
support for ASP.NET master pages will be included in the next version of
FrontPage, your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's for that matter.

In the meantime, there are design time DWTs, there are Content Management
Systems some of which use DWT quite nicely such as Contribute and probably
Content Seed, there are server side includes. I tend to use a combination of
DWTs, CSS and SSIs.

Most really large websites use a full fledged CMS but I have run 200+ page
websites using a combination of DWTs, CSS and SSIs for several years.

--
Cheryl D. Wise
MS FrontPage MVP
http://mvp.wiserways.com
http://starttoweb.com
Online instructor led web design training in FrontPage,
Dreamweaver and more!
Next Session June 26th

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Cheryl,

We currently use ASP.NET and the CMS concept, but we wanted to give authors
more control over the navigation and also make use of non-editable areas.
Frontpage 2003 would be quite capable of doing this including server-side,
but Microsoft have no vision, and deliberately limited it. Without
auto-update and x-platform server-side functionality, the feature is
completely worthless. We never used DW because of the same limitation.
Microsoft have merely "copied" a bad idea.

The extensions have not "gone away", they're right there in WSS, it's just
that they are now limited to only work on Windows Server 2003. I don't agree
that DWT is not designed to work with servers, because it clearly DOES work
with WSS.

Cross-platform Frontpage extensions were one of the few innovative things
Microsoft (well actually Verneer) ever did, because they abstracted the web
authoring process from the server technology, and also because they work
through firewalls, whereas "disk based webs" do not.work in a collaborative
live server environment.

Market penetration of Frontpage was always terrible. This new version is now
limited to only work properly on Windows servers at 2003 level, otherwise
menu items will be grayed out. If Sharepoint was made available for other
servers, then things would be different, but hardly any hosting companies
are going to use Sharepoint as it stands, so (as usual) Frontpage will be
"written off" by the majority web specialists.

Sharepoint is more of a proprietary hurdle than previous versions of FPEXT,
because at least those previous versions were open-source, and available for
a wide range of servers.

Gerry Hickman (London UK)

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Jim,

I think this whole thing stems from a lack of understanding on your part.

Maybe if I explain it a different way:

The only "feature" of Frontpage 2003 worth getting out of bed for is the
DWT. The DWT is completely pointless unless auto-update is working in
the context of "web" sites (I defined what a web site is earlier in the
thread, and it's not silly "disk based web").

A user who buys Frontpage 2003 and tries to use it with their web
hosting provider will find the DWT menus grayed out.

Only users who have full access to a Windows Server 2003 box will be
able to use DWT to full effect. Other users will be misled and ripped off.

I'm not convinced this is made clear in the system requirements that
people check prior to purchase (?), although it does seem to be
documented in the FAQ.

If I'd paid for this, as opposed to being on Volume Licensing, I would
_not_ be amused.

 

[Jim Cheshire]

The only "feature" of Frontpage 2003 worth getting out of bed for is
the DWT. The DWT is completely pointless unless auto-update is
working in the context of "web" sites (I defined what a web site is
earlier in
the thread, and it's not silly "disk based web").

A user who buys Frontpage 2003 and tries to use it with their web
hosting provider will find the DWT menus grayed out.

I think what you're referring to is folks who only live edit their site. I
submit that to be a bad idea, but I can understand the argument.

Yes, you are correct that DWTs do not work fully against FPSE. That is a
valid complaint, but unless a new version of the FPSE is release (highly
unlikely), it's not going to change.

--
Jim Cheshire
JIMCO Software
http://www.jimcosoftware.com
http://www.jimcoaddins.com

The premiere add-in and software source
for Microsoft FrontPage.

 

[Cheryl D Wise]

Gerry,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I find plenty of things in
FrontPage 2003 to make it worth upgrading even without DWTs.

The split code view, intellisense and replacement of Java based hover
buttons with JavaScript behaviors is worth the upgrade without ever touching
a singe DWT.

Cheryl D. Wise
MS FrontPage MVP
http://mvp.wiserways.com
http://starttoweb.com
Online instructor led web design training in FrontPage,
Dreamweaver and more!

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Jim,

I think what you're referring to is folks who only live edit their site. I
submit that to be a bad idea, but I can understand the argument.

1) Live editing can be safer than off-line editing, because you only
have one version to worry about, it also allows proof reading by simply
hitting the refresh button. We have a world-wide operation, and users
need to see right-away (and collaborate) with what's happening. They are
not inside our firewall and don't have NetBIOS access, so everything has
to work over HTTP. There are also problems with ASP and DATA driven
pages not working properly unless they're being served from a web
server. I find this outweighs the worry of someone making a typo and
hitting "save". In two years of running live we've never regretted an
authoring action.

Yes, you are correct that DWTs do not work fully against FPSE. That is a
valid complaint, but unless a new version of the FPSE is release (highly
unlikely), it's not going to change.

Sure, and (in my view) this will devalue Frontpage.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Hi Cheryl,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I find plenty of things in
FrontPage 2003 to make it worth upgrading even without DWTs.

The split code view, intellisense and replacement of Java based hover
buttons with JavaScript behaviors is worth the upgrade without ever touching
a singe DWT.

1. java based hover buttons (gone)

Yes! I agree with you on this one. That was the most absurd feature
Microsoft ever put in a product, but since we never used them, it hardly
makes any difference which version of FP we use.

2. Split code

Maybe, I'm not convinced this is very usful though except when people
are learing HTML? I prefer to be in one view or the other and find the
"split" tab gets in the way.

3. Intellisense

Could be nice, I have not tested it yet, but we don't really do
development work in FP, we tend to use dedicated tools or a text editor.
I wonder what things it can sense? If we create an ASP.NET page inside
Frontpage, will it show objects and properties of our imported assemblies?

All these other features can be done in other ways in earlier versions,
so I don't consider them as important as DWTs. In the latter case,
there's no way to mimic the DWT in earlier versions - that's why I see
it as the most important.