Why shouldn't I use Frontpage?

#1

When made my first website I used MS Publisher. Although I learned later that the
resulting HTML was mucky and bloated, it taught me the fundementals.
My next pc came with MS Frontpage and although it produced quite nice webpages, my
provider at that time did not support FP extensions.
My site was criticised by the purists on alt.html, so I abandoned FP for a time and
produced my site using various other editors, each time validating every page with W3C.
Although it uses frames a lot and tables extensively I have not changed it for a good
while.
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?
--
Jim S
www.jimscott.co.uk

#2

In article <Xns984FA6D0D55A7jimjimscotXplusnet (AT) 84 (DOT) 92.1.10>,
Jim Scott <jim (AT) jimscot (DOT) Xplus.net> wrote:

Quote:

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with
heaps of webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its
bells and whistles.

I personally don't care what you use ... provided I can get through your
site with the browser I like. That'd be the one thing I'd be a little
leery of w/regard to FP: creating pages that work in IE (possibly
specific versions of IE) only.

For myself, that'd be reason to not use the tool, or to learn to use it
in a way that does not create that limitation. (My understanding is that
the latter is possible.)

--
Joel.

#3

Jim Scott wrote:

Quote:

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

--
Dan

#4

On 1 Oct 2006 10:15:34 -0700, Dan wrote:

Quote:

Jim Scott wrote:
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

Thanks.
At first glance it looks a 'bit' like what I have been doing only more-so.

)
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

#5

Dan wrote:

Quote:

Jim Scott wrote:
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

I wrote a page (a bit dated now, as it was originally written years ago
and has had only sporadic updates since) about the problems associated
with WYSIWYG editors:

http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html

--
Dan
______________________

That is a very interesting article about WYSIWYG editors, and I hope to
study it more closely. I am a newbie to HTML and web page creation,
but I do happen to have FP 2003. Like the original poster, I was
wondering why anyone would want to learn HTML when programs like FP and
Dreamweaver exist. However, Dan's article does help to clarify why
learning HTML might be very helpful. Thanks.

I remember a while back creating a web page in MS Word XP just for
practice. It was not a complicated web page at all, but when I looked
at the source code actually created by MS Word, I could not believe how
complex and how extensive it was. HTML coding would have been very
straight forward and not nearly as complex. I was wondering at the time
whether that complexity was a good or necessary thing.

One of the advantages of FP 2003 for HTML lovers is that the program
can simply function as a very good HTML editor, without adding FP's
smoke and mirrors, if the writer wants that. You can also use FP's
special tools for web site creation, and still tinker with the HTML
source code behind the scene (although I am not anywhere near
proficient to do much tinkering with the more complex code yet).

David F.

#6

Jim Scott wrote:

Quote:

When made my first website I used MS Publisher. Although I learned later that the
resulting HTML was mucky and bloated, it taught me the fundementals.
My next pc came with MS Frontpage and although it produced quite nice webpages, my
provider at that time did not support FP extensions.
My site was criticised by the purists on alt.html, so I abandoned FP for a time and
produced my site using various other editors, each time validating every page with W3C.
Although it uses frames a lot and tables extensively I have not changed it for a good
while.
My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

FRONTPAGE REALLY F**KS UP YOUR HTML! FrontPage is notorious for this.
FrontPage uses a tags that can only be used by Internet Explorer, which
messes up the web site for viewers who have the brains to use other
browsers, such as Mozilla, Safari, Firefox, Opera. FP also likes to use
stupid document formatting that makes code buggy and hard to read.

FrontPage Extensions
FrontPage uses little "programs" called "FrontPage Extensions" with the
idea of not having to use a server side language for functions. This
seems like a good idea because you don't have to use a server side
language such as ASP, PHP, or SSI. FrontPage Extensions have a habit of
screwing up and being terribly inefficient.

Because the frontpage extensions cause security issues.

The web components are non-web-standard, quirky to debug, and even
harder to convert over to a different editor such as Dreamweaver.

FrontPage was purposely designed to only work hassle-free ONLY with
Microsoft Web Servers. A whole series of artificial stumbling blocks
have been written into the program to make it less compatable with
non-Microsoft products.

Do a search on the web, there are many reasons NOT to use FrontPage.

#7

In article <Xns984FA6D0D55A7jimjimscotXplusnet (AT) 84 (DOT) 92.1.10>,
jim (AT) jimscot (DOT) Xplus.net says...

Quote:

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

Your site appears to work in Opera9.02, which is the acid test as far as

I am concerned.
For what you are doing, FP is perfectly fine, as it is for ANY personal
(non-commercial) site. If you don't want to learn HTML, but do want to
show your pictures to others, and you have FP, why not use it?
(There are other, free, wysiwyg HTML proggies that are arguably better
than FP. Go to http://www.nvu.com for one of them.)

Me - I wouldn't use FP or frames. I'd rather eat worms.

http://graspages.cjb.cc/test/ shows one way to do your galleries without
frames or tables.
http://graspages.cjb.cc/rant/ takes you to rants about FP and frames.

oh - and nice pics, by the way.

#8

Jim Scott wrote:

Quote:

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.

I, personally, have no problem with FP, and have said so elsewhere. In
fact, I added a page to my site because of all the negativity(sp)
produced by some of the posters on this site. (See
http://www.orangefrogproductions.com...drookies.shtml.)

I'm glad to see that others on alt.html don't really have problems with
WYSIWYG editors, as long as you are aware of the items that can get
added into the HTML code that you don't need. FP is my "editor of
choice", though there ARE problems with it. Again, if you know what to
watch for, you can skip it.

You MUST remember, that the "bells and whistles" are FP Extensions, and
not everyone or every browser can (or WANT to) deal with them. I also
don't agree that you cannot use FP if you are writing a "professional"
site. You cannot do some of the things in the site without adding some
type of scripting, or actually editing the HTML, but FP can be used to
give you basics. You MUST be willing to actually look at, learn and
edit the HTML, directly (Source mode in FP), or even in a text editor
if FP refuses to do it, but there are literally THOUSANDS of sites out
there where you can find what you need/want to do.

If you're comfortable with FP, and don't use their extensions (that
goes for almost ANY WYSIWYG), then there should be no problem, even
from the "standards" bearers. ;-)

BigDaddyBS (Bill S.)

PS: If you have constructive comments about the page I wrote, let me
know.

#9

Jim Scott wrote:

Quote:

My ISP these days is quite happy with FP extensions and provides me with heaps of
webspace so I can see no good reason why I should not use FP with all its bells and
whistles.
Can you?

I can not think of a single reason that you should not use Front Page.
It is just an editor.

YOU are ultimately responsible for the code on your web page. NOT the
editor you choose to use.