advanced(?) .css

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris leeds
  • Start date Start date
IMHO
it's an easier interface to work with. the publishing function is much
better, even the tabbed multiple pages in "normal view" is a big benefit.
the database connection functions are good (even if you don't use the dbrw)
it's nice to be able to mark a database/ folder for writing without hassling
the server guys.
No web server is needed on the local machine.
and I think most importantly you can set it to not molest your page code
which is helpful if you're editing and publishing an existing app/ script.
I haven't messed around with the older versions so I've only got a cursory
knowledge of how they work.
they tell me that fp 2003 is even better than 02.
 
What PWS?

FP hasn't shipped with PWS since FP98 and Windows OS drop it as of Window
ME. If you need to use a local web server, then you have to have Windows
2000 or XP Pro,
Click to expand...

I knew someone would flame me for that :-)
Just using "PWS" as a general term to cover a local server for
development use. Name it what you want.
and as long as the FP 2000/2002 extensions are installed and
configured for the default web, then FP will have no problem accessing it
via http://localhost.
Click to expand...

FP will have no problem. 98 out of 100 users will.
 
IMHO
it's an easier interface to work with. the publishing function is much
better,
Click to expand...

A little better. Not much.
even the tabbed multiple pages in "normal view" is a big benefit.
Click to expand...

The window menu worked for that, but it's a "nicety".
the database connection functions are good (even if you don't use the dbrw)
it's nice to be able to mark a database/ folder for writing without hassling
the server guys.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit that I would never use FP for database work.
I don't think it has serious capabilities there.
No web server is needed on the local machine.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been "needed" since FP95. You should still use it unless you
build very simple webs. Previous versions have had issues with various
features if you don't use one. Certain things just can't be tested
locally without a web server.
and I think most importantly you can set it to not molest your page code
which is helpful if you're editing and publishing an existing app/ script.
Click to expand...

The early versions (95/97) were very bad at this. I think the
problems with FP actually whacking code went away with '98. You have
been able to use the "leave it alone" tags for some time.
they tell me that fp 2003 is even better than 02.
Click to expand...

I'm sure. :-)
 
Hi Jimmy,

I am definitely not getting into a flame war here, but after working on the
product for years, I just have to say something :-)

It really depends on what you use the product for whether you like the
changes we've made since FrontPage 98, but based on your comments so far, I
really think you should check out the free trial (available with no download
necessary) of FrontPage 2003 and check out the comparison chart. Both can
be accessed from here:

http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085802

Obviously I'm biased, but based on reading between the lines, I think you'd
be pretty impressed with our split screen view, intellisense (for HTML,
JScript, and XSLT), the WYSIWYG XSLT data view (I saw your comment on not
using FrontPage for a data driven site, so you should check it out), FTP and
WebDAV support from the new publishing interface, Find and Replace which
allows for the use of Regular Expressions and HTML rules, and Behaviors
(which use JScript for client-side effects).

As I said, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but I'm really
proud of this release and think you might like it.
 
As I said, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but I'm really
proud of this release and think you might like it.
Click to expand...

Me either. I'll take you up on your offer.

I know what I can do with XSLt and I don't think I'd be using FP to
do it or doing anything but server side XML in the real world right
now, but it's an interesting thought. Some of the other features
are interesting too if they work cross-platform. Those of us who
build for the public can't build "MS-only" or "version 5 and higher"
only code. I'll give it a fair shake and see if what it produces
works. (I have my concerns as the www.microsoft.com page produces
errors in NS4... no one seems to care at MS :-). If you've built a
tool that can handle more of what I have to do now manually to
produce cross-platform code that would be a good thing.

My own feeling is still that 98% of the users
of FP won't be using the features you mentioned, but some folks
here might. What _most_ people need is a good tool to do the basics -
they don't have the training to do the more advanced stuff even if
the tool can do a majority (never all) of the work. They certainly
don't have the expertise to build cross platform sites unless the
tool will standardize for them and 98% don't know about
the "compatibility" option. I hope that's more obvious in 2003.

Of course, I shouldn't complain... amateur built sites are a major
business opportunity, no matter what tool they used :-)
 
Or better still, Try FP2003 live online at
http://www.runaware.com/microsoft/frontpage2003/

--




| Hi Jimmy,
|
| I am definitely not getting into a flame war here, but after working on the
| product for years, I just have to say something :-)
|
| It really depends on what you use the product for whether you like the
| changes we've made since FrontPage 98, but based on your comments so far, I
| really think you should check out the free trial (available with no download
| necessary) of FrontPage 2003 and check out the comparison chart. Both can
| be accessed from here:
|
| http://office.microsoft.com/home/office.aspx?assetid=FX01085802
|
| Obviously I'm biased, but based on reading between the lines, I think you'd
| be pretty impressed with our split screen view, intellisense (for HTML,
| JScript, and XSLT), the WYSIWYG XSLT data view (I saw your comment on not
| using FrontPage for a data driven site, so you should check it out), FTP and
| WebDAV support from the new publishing interface, Find and Replace which
| allows for the use of Regular Expressions and HTML rules, and Behaviors
| (which use JScript for client-side effects).
|
| As I said, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but I'm really
| proud of this release and think you might like it.
| --
| Thanks!
| John Jansen
| Micosoft Office FrontPage
| This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|
|
| | > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:21:27 -0500, "chris leeds" <[email protected]>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >IMHO
| > >it's an easier interface to work with. the publishing function is much
| > >better,
| >
| > A little better. Not much.
| >
| > >even the tabbed multiple pages in "normal view" is a big benefit.
| >
| > The window menu worked for that, but it's a "nicety".
| >
| > >the database connection functions are good (even if you don't use the
| dbrw)
| > >it's nice to be able to mark a database/ folder for writing without
| hassling
| > >the server guys.
| >
| > Well, I have to admit that I would never use FP for database work.
| > I don't think it has serious capabilities there.
| >
| > >No web server is needed on the local machine.
| >
| > It hasn't been "needed" since FP95. You should still use it unless you
| > build very simple webs. Previous versions have had issues with various
| > features if you don't use one. Certain things just can't be tested
| > locally without a web server.
| >
| > >and I think most importantly you can set it to not molest your page code
| > >which is helpful if you're editing and publishing an existing app/
| script.
| >
| > The early versions (95/97) were very bad at this. I think the
| > problems with FP actually whacking code went away with '98. You have
| > been able to use the "leave it alone" tags for some time.
| >
| > >they tell me that fp 2003 is even better than 02.
| >
| > I'm sure. :-)
|
|
 
Back
Top