Front Page Extensions??????

F1F1

Mr_Skint wrote:

Scheming_gypsy has had some problems with Frontpage so I doubt a reccomendation
would be on the cards I however have had no such problems so I would say yes use Frontpage as its very easy to use, but some of the HTML is a little untidy but if you wish to design easy sites go for it.

FrontPage used to be derided because of the untidy html code it produced. However, FP 2000 was apparently better than past versions in this respect and FP 2003 produces pretty clean code. Dreamweaver produces clean code but is a bit more of a learning curve than FrontPage and is more expensive!

F1F1

meclive wrote:

Frontpage extensions basically just add dynamic content/functionality to your site without you having to input the code yourself, any half decent hosting company should not charge you extra for this.

And you can make perfectly good websites without using FP Extensions if you want - you don't have to use them and the hosting they require.

Mr_Skint_2

Yeah thats kinda what I said, except for that it wasnt until the advent of 2002
until MS got there act together and then they released 2003 and went back by about
10years, thats why a lot of small simple designers still use 2002, and have
ditched 2003.

Mr_Skint_2

F1F1 wrote:

And you can make perfectly good websites without using FP Extensions if you want - you don't have to use them and the hosting they require.

If you dont use the FP extensions there is a big possibility
that you wont get web forms to work let alone to appear
on the page, if you design them in Frontpage.

blinky

F1F1 wrote:

Dreamweaver produces clean code

Only if you use edit it by hand. The code produced by Dreamweaver is generally poorly structured but it's better than that produced by Fireworks and GoLive.

None of the WYSIWYG editors produce clean code, it's just the way they are.

At the end of the day, most people only care how the site looks like and not how well it's coded (and often not how well it performs).

Mr_Skint_2

blinky I agree.

And thats why if you know your code you can build them in Notepad.

F1F1

Mr_Skint wrote:

Yeah thats kinda what I said, except for that it wasnt until the advent of 2002 until MS got there act together and then they released 2003 and went back by about 10years, thats why a lot of small simple designers still use 2002, and have ditched 2003.

I quite liked FP 2000 and put off trying FP 2003 until recently. I haven't looked at it thoroughly enough to be able to comment, but I think so far I kinda prefer 2000!

F1F1

Mr_Skint wrote:

If you dont use the FP extensions there is a big possibility
that you wont get web forms to work let alone to appear
on the page, if you design them in Frontpage.

Obviously you wouldn't include the elements that rely on FP Extensions. Some elements you can get elsewhere anyway, such as hit counters.

Mr_Skint_2

Oh yeah sure the hit counters are crappy at the very least
but for webforms its very handy.

FP2000 is a bit er well junk really so is 2003, you wanna upgrade to 2002.

F1F1

blinky wrote:

Only if you use edit it by hand. The code produced by Dreamweaver is generally poorly structured but it's better than that produced by Fireworks and GoLive.

None of the WYSIWYG editors produce clean code, it's just the way they are.

At the end of the day, most people only care how the site looks like and not how well it's coded (and often not how well it performs).

That's the first time I've heard anyone refer to Dreamweaver's code as poorly structured. It's only the industry standard.. I agree that hand coding produces the cleanest code but who wants to hand code a large site? <ok, ok, some do.. > I agree most people only care about how the site looks. But surely it would have to perform well? Especially if it was a business site? Most internet users are in a hurry to get the information they want and they want the site to work well for them.