homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.144.231
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors Forum

This 99 message thread spans 4 pages: 99 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
What's wrong with FrontPage?
Negative comments about the program
shallow




msg:933253
 12:32 pm on Jan 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Since I've started participating in this forum not too long ago, I've seen a number of negative comments about FrontPage such as this recent one someone wrote in another thread:

"Only the ones who use FrontPage or using a free blog system can't actually say that they are really webmasters."

I haven't seen any explanations for these types of comments so I'm curious as to why the negativity.

 

Rugles




msg:933254
 10:27 pm on Jan 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

A webmaster using Frontpage is fine, dont listen to them. The hardcore coders will use Frontpage as only one of the programs they use to create sites though.

There is a certain group who turn up their nose at some M$ products and WYSIWYG programs as being for novices.

europeforvisitors




msg:933255
 10:57 pm on Jan 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, and there may be some who fear the loss of income from tools and systems that threaten to make their work obsolete (just as DTP made typesetting, keylining, and other traditional graphic-arts skills obsolete in the 1980s and 1990s).

shallow




msg:933256
 12:59 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Interesting.

I only use FrontPage. For me it's just a tool, a means to an end and not the end itself.

phantombookman




msg:933257
 1:18 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

A lot of it is because it is microsoft

If Bill Gates came up with a cure for cancer and gave it to the world for free some people would still be against it!

Leosghost




msg:933258
 1:24 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's because it adds in lil' bits of code that serve no purpose unless you are placing the site or pages etc on a windows server .( which if you are not going to host on a doze server you then should strip out to get lighter pages ..and you need to know what to strip out without breaking your code ) ..

Dreamweaver doesn't try to "force your hand" into using cold fusion by adding proprietory tags ..

Pagemill ( now defunct adobe product ) used to do this ( add in some tags stuff aswell ) ..but Adobe weren't making server software ..( never understood why adobe did these extra and weird tags ).

If you are going to use a wysiwyg ..it's better to have one that doesnt add in stuff that you probably wont need ..

and before we get onto the "you can tweak the code or handcoding is always better" etc ..why should you have to strip out things from an app?

..they dont sell it with written on the box "adds unnecessary peices of code in order to try to get you to host your site on servers running microsoft systems" ..

But if they were being honest ..they should

Ps.. I actually quite like Bill Gates ( what I see of him )..I don't however like the policy applied to software developement that is practised at Redmond

sonjay




msg:933259
 1:30 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

When I last looked at FP back in the 90s, it was a horrible horrible program that wrote horrible horrible code. I understand it's a lot better now, but still have no desire to use it.

Today, my main objection to FP is its proprietary and non-standard "stuff" that sits between the user and their code. shared borders? web-bots? If you depend on FP to write your shared borders and web-bot things, you're completely dependant on FP for development. You don't learn anything about "real" server-side includes or other server-side processing, you only learn how to point and click to generate proprietary, non-standard stuff that won't work on "the internet" without FP's server-side cousin (FP extensions) available on the server. You're helpless without both your local FP program and its server-side cousin.

The Contractor




msg:933260
 1:39 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's because it adds in lil' bits of code that serve no purpose unless you are placing the site or pages etc on a windows server

Nope, that's simply false with the latest incarnations of the product. Once the settings/preferences are setup correctly it will not add any extra code unless the user specifies it. I have seen dreamweaver, golive, etc bloat and make a mess out of code when one does not know how to use it (actually all WYSIWYG will do this if you use some of the "features").

I use an older version of Namo, but I also own FP2003 and "it" has never added any extra code. I do not use any HTML Editor to upload - prefer to use a standalone FTP program for this.

If you depend on FP to write your shared borders and web-bot things, you're completely dependant on FP for development. You don't learn anything about "real" server-side includes or other server-side processing, you only learn how to point and click to generate proprietary, non-standard stuff that won't work on "the internet" without FP's server-side cousin (FP extensions) available on the server.

Completely agree - that is one of the "features" you do not want to use (among many). Very simple to use SSI instead. There are many "features" in all WYSIWYG editors you should not be using.

Leosghost




msg:933261
 1:53 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

The problem being that when one gets frontpage out of the box ..as a beginner one frequently doesn't have the knowledge to set up the preferences ..so by default it adds things ..

DW doesnt unless you use what you refer to as features..
Go live? No idea what it does ..not interested ..

I'm actually part of the 98% hand coded worker set ..( don't beleive anyone actually hand codes 100% of their html ) but to get a quick look at what is behind the visible part of someones page I will use DW ..

BTW I upload etc with cute ftp pro

shallow




msg:933262
 3:03 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Very informative points.

I'm doing quite well monetarily and traffic-wise with my site. I consider myself a web designer, not a webmaster. For my needs, FrontPage serves me well even if I'm dependent on proprietary things. Not sure the vast majority of my site visitors even know or care.

Please don't misunderstand me. I so admire the knowledge and skills many of you have. But I am not at the age or stage in life that I want or need to get deep into all that technical stuff (when I do, I hire someone).

My only reason for asking the original question is that people often knock FrontPage without providing a rationale and this has the potential of making a FrontPage user feel uncomfortable. Thanks for sharing some of the rationale.

vincevincevince




msg:933263
 4:36 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

In the past it has been one of the worst WYSIWYG packages I've tried, the last time I tried it was a the version bundled with Office XP. It was very difficult to create an HTML page which was cross-browser safe, had clean code, and didn't waste time with Author tags etc.

It also tried to connect to the server using a Microsoft system rather than using FTP, the established standard.

I have spent a long time thinking about this and there are now, in my opinion, just 10 elements you need to know to create virtually any static web-page using a text editor. 10 elements which should take no more than 3 minutes each, making the course just half an hour. Probably about the same time you need to become proficient with Frontpage.

1. <a href="...">...</a> construct
2. <table><tr><td></td></tr></table> construct
3. <div></div> construct
3. <span></span> construct
4. style="" attribute
5. text-align: CSS
6. font: CSS
7. border: CSS
8. margin: CSS
9. <img src="..." /> construct
10. <h1> <h2> <h3> ...

dauction




msg:933264
 5:53 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Frontpage is a great program..

It makes actually creating websites very easy and efficient , you can add photos and resamble to be web friendly with just a couple clicks , you add try different themes across your site with just a few clicks ,

Navigation , Forms , javascripts , include pages , Marquees , Time and Date , Interactive buttons , Spreadsheets , charts , Optimize your html and set 50 different settings for everything from Autothumb styles and size to color coding .

Frames ,Inserting Data , Borders and Shading ,Tables all made easy with just a few cliks ..

On and On and On ..

FrontPage is designed for those that want to build websites INSTEAD of playing around with code all day.. of course if that's what you want to do ..to actually learn that aspect .. you can work in split view or code view and learn AS you build .

The people that are telling you it sucks are the SAME people that told you we dont need no damn graphical operating systems ..DOS is all you need ...blah blah blah

Go back to your geek holes and let the rest of the world actually be productive

IN the REAL world no one cares how the code looks..whether it contains propritary code or not ..they care how the Webpages look

europeforvisitors




msg:933265
 10:26 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

The people that are telling you it sucks are the SAME people that told you we dont need no damn graphical operating systems ..DOS is all you need ...blah blah blah

And of course they don't know to set up and the program adequately, since they've never done more with play with it or haven't used it since the days when it came on 3-1/2" floppies. (Bitching about FrontPage 98, as I've seen people do here, is like reciting complaints about Windows 98 or an outdated Mac operating system--what's the point?)

I'm earning a very comfortable income with the help of FrontPage 2003, I do well in the search engines, and my site loads more quickly than most. I also spend less time squinting at my monitor than the "Hasn't the Internet gone downhill since the days of UNIX shell accounts" crowd do when they're editing in Notepad or their old copies of HotDog Pro 2.0. :-)

zCat




msg:933266
 11:26 pm on Jan 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you ever come across one of those amateurish-looking sites (you know, the kind that seem to be stuck in a late 90's timewarp with bevelled borders, scrolling marquees and animated gifs), the chances are quite high that you can scroll down to the bottom of the page and there'll be words to the effect "created with Microsoft Frontpage".

No doubt there are many perfectly decent sites out there also created with Frontpage, but which don't advertise the fact.

This, in a nutshell, is Frontpage's image problem.

europeforvisitors




msg:933267
 12:08 am on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, you could say the same thing about any site created with blogging software. I think FrontPage's "image problem" has more to do with hostility toward Microsoft than anything else (especially among Web designers who have a religious devotion to their Macs). Never mind that the program was invented by a small company in Massachusetts when a lot of the FrontPage haters were still in junior high. :-)

zCat




msg:933268
 12:28 am on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, I know in my case it's the association with all those less-than-optimal sites out there. (Though I must admit to being a non-Microsoft user - I hope that hasn't clouded my judgment too much;-)

inbound




msg:933269
 1:01 am on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm not a fan of Frontpage but I have to say that the web is about participation, any tool that allows non technical people to create a site is a good thing. We all talk about content being the most important thing for users and search engines, so why complain so vociferously about another, albeit non-optimal, way of creating such content.

I'd say that technically-savvy users are responsible for more junk on the net than those that use Frontpage. I'm talking about MFA's, scraper sites etc. Frontpage users usually don't have the level of technical knowledge that pollutes their goals on the web, they want to make a site about their company/passion/politics/opinion rather than make 50 sites just to make money.

While I'm on a rant I'd like to point out that it's one of only a few options that non-technical people will find out about. Since they know how to use a few features in Word, it makes sense to use the package that comes with Office.

As for other suggestions in this thread, there are some amazing assumptions. My favourite is the assertion that HTML & CSS can be mastered in 30 minutes! I'd love to see anyone teach all of this in 30 minutes to anyone who has no knowledge of HTML:

1. <a href="...">...</a> construct
2. <table><tr><td></td></tr></table> construct
3. <div></div> construct
3. <span></span> construct
4. style="" attribute
5. text-align: CSS
6. font: CSS
7. border: CSS
8. margin: CSS
9. <img src="..." /> construct
10. <h1> <h2> <h3> ...

On the flip side of the argument, I also had a laugh at this:

Nope, that's simply false with the latest incarnations of the product. Once the settings/preferences are setup correctly it will not add any extra code unless the user specifies it.

Translation: Frontpage adds extra code until you learn how to tell it not to.

I never use Frontpage but I'm sure I have read interesting things on the web that would not be there if Frontpage did not exist.

The day that you need to pass a point of technical knowledge in order to publish your thoughts on the web will be a sad day.

The Contractor




msg:933270
 1:04 am on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, I know in my case it's the association with all those less-than-optimal sites out there.

There is no way you would ever know which sites were done in FP besides the ones who don't set their options/preferences.

As far as the complaint of
as a beginner one frequently doesn't have the knowledge to set up the preferences

That can be said about any software or hardware available – It's a lame excuse. There will always be those who blame products for the outcome/results – instead of their own stupidity, laziness, or failures to use any common sense.

Also, it seems as everyone complaining here about FP doesn’t actually have any experience with FP2002/2003.

Translation: Frontpage adds extra code until you learn how to tell it not to.

Wrong again. The only thing it will add unless you drop in shared borders, themes etc. will be a tag in the header like "Frontpage editor". It will output W3C validated HTML/XML.

inbound




msg:933271
 1:19 am on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wrong again. The only thing it will add unless you drop in shared borders, themes etc. will be a tag in the header like "Frontpage editor". It will output W3C validated HTML/XML.

Don't get so upset, it's not personal. I'm also not knocking Frontpage.

However, both of your assertions have holes in them. You can't say a product does not add non-standard items and then go on to say it only doesn't for a subset of the options available to a user.

I don't care how people make their pages, I do care when people take a stand with comments that amount to this:

Frontpage does not add any extra stuff IF you tell it not to AND you don't use any of the features that actually will add extra stuff.

zCat




msg:933272
 1:24 am on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)



Well, I know in my case it's the association with all those less-than-optimal sites out there.

There is no way you would ever know which sites were done in FP besides the ones who don't set their options/preferences.

Exactly. That's why a lot of people, myself included, have a generally negative view of FP, because one doesn't see all the decent sites created with it. A marketing, rather than a technical issue.

FWIW, having seen this thread, I'm now prepared to accept that FP is a reasonable product :-).

The Contractor




msg:933273
 1:56 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not upset at all. People who complain the most about FP and post how it wrecks havoc on code etc are simply the ones making assumptions as they have "no" experience with the product and are making assumptions based upon 2nd hand information.

Did you ever see the nested tables and styles DW applies when the user doesn't know what they are doing? Is it DW's fault, no, it is the users fault for not understanding the product.

As far as adding the meta tag, all WYSIWYG editors do it. Do a search for <meta name="Generator" content="Macromedia Dreamweaver"> for example or blog software such as <meta name="Generator" content="mambo"> or <meta name="generator" content="WordPress 1.5.1.3" />. Most every blog sofware will enter the meta "generator" tag (view the source of your favorite blogs).

I do not know of any software that protects the user from themselves. If someone will not take 5-minutes to setup their options in a software program and then complain about it - it doesn't make sense to me...oh, wait, it's the people who are not using the product that are complaining ;)

sonjay




msg:933274
 2:15 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

If I'm reading the original post correctly, shallow asked for the reasons some of us don't like FrontPage.

Every answer I've seen in this thread appropriately provides the poster's reasons for not liking it.

Nobody started the thread to bash FP, and nobody has come on here saying "FP SUCKS MAN!" The responses have answered the original poster's question.

If you want to use FP, more power to you! Go ahead and use it. You don't need anyone's approval. You don't for me or anyone else to approve of FP. You are free to disregard our reasons for disliking it. But why all the whining and moaning about the people who have simply responded to the original question?

The Contractor




msg:933275
 2:42 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

You are free to disregard our reasons for disliking it. But why all the whining and moaning about the people who have simply responded to the original question?

I don't use it except occasionally.

The problem I have is the people who have responded stating why they do not like it are basing their information on 2nd-hand or unfounded assumptions, as they do not use it. I simply don't like misinformation – which there is a lot of surrounding most any topic.

When people start basing their views on a product based upon site quality when viewing the source and seeing <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft FrontPage"> or similar that's plain wrong – just as it would be to do the same when looking at <meta name="Generator" content="Macromedia Dreamweaver">. Site quality is not what editor you use, it's how you use it and the talents the developer has.

I believe that 90% of the blogs out there are offering trash, rambling, or misinformation – I don't blame it on the blog software used to create it.

Sorry you took it as a moan/whine.

Leosghost




msg:933276
 2:47 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

As far as adding the meta tag, all WYSIWYG editors do it. Do a search for <meta name="Generator" content="Macromedia Dreamweaver"> for example

Nope ..sorry ;)..didn't think DW did that so I just fired up DW MX and tested it ..It opens with a blank page "untitled" and the only code in the header is as follows
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>

I didn't have to do anything to it's settings to make it not give a "meta name = generator etc" ..It just doesnt do this out of the box ..nor, you will notice does it make keyword or description metas ..unless you ask it to..

( maybe ..why it costs much more than FP..is the nearest for a WYSIWYG to hand coding when "fresh out of the box" .."un setup" ..and "untweaked" )

Posting "misleading" info in order to back up your "agenda" isn't going to help the OP nor as Sonjay said does it answer the OP's original question ..doesn't do your cred much good either :)

Ps ..DW MX doesn't slip anything into the "footer" either.

The Contractor




msg:933277
 3:24 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

So I guess by pasting into Yahoo search field <meta name="Generator" content="Dreamweaver"> that the user manually put that in...

Hmm....never heard of FP putting anything into a footer?

My point being is that just because you own canvas, paint, and brushes it doesn't mean you are an artist. No more than owning a piece of software like PhotoShop makes you a graphic artist or DW makes you a professional web designer/developer. In capable hands FP, DW, or GoLive are great tools to get your work done, but if you lack skills/understanding none of these programs are going to make up for it. If I make terrible graphics - it's not the fault of PhotoShop - it's a lack of skill/creativity on my part.

edited:
Posting "misleading" info in order to back up your "agenda"..

Agenda? What agenda would that be? hehe

[edited by: The_Contractor at 3:28 pm (utc) on Jan. 15, 2006]

kevinpate




msg:933278
 3:26 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

people have different preferences, no more, no less.
It's possible to have better than merely acceptable pages produced from an old FP98 version located on an old Pentium II slomo box that even (gasps) relies on Win98.

It's also possible to totally handcode and/or use more powerful software and knock out pages of exceptional quality, and pages of crud quality, depending on the skill of the coder.

Doing what works for you, what fits your budget and what best lets you get the most value out of your day is the way to go.

stever




msg:933279
 3:36 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

So I guess by pasting into Yahoo search field <meta name="Generator" content="Dreamweaver"> that the user manually put that in...

I would guess it's from a substantially older version of DW (I just checked a page I made in DW4 years ago and it didn't have that in it - I don't remember ever seeing it, either).

The Contractor




msg:933280
 3:49 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would guess it's from a substantially older version of DW (I just checked a page I made in DW4 years ago and it didn't have that in it - I don't remember ever seeing it, either).

Thank You! My point exactly! (although pasting <meta name="generator" content="Dreamweaver MX 2004" /> into Yahoo/Google still gives some results)
People are basing their opinions on free versions of FP or early incarnations of the product (FP98). If they would actually use FP2003 they would see that it is as capable as producing W3C compliant code as any of the other two I mentioned and without any code bloat. I'm not down on any product and would defend DW, GoLive, FP, or other editors like Namo 5.5 (prefer it over newer vers) that I use/have used.

Again, using almost any of the better WYSIWYG editors will produce good code if the user knows what they are doing. If the user does not - all of them can bloat code etc. It's not the tools as much as the skill of the person using them. This goes with almost anything in life - just because I own a tool doesn't mean that I know how to use it to produce professional results.

europeforvisitors




msg:933281
 4:14 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't care how people make their pages, I do care when people take a stand with comments that amount to this: Frontpage does not add any extra stuff IF you tell it not to AND you don't use any of the features that actually will add extra stuff.

If some advanced features add "extra stuff" when users choose to employ them, that isn't isn't a flaw in the program. It's just the price of having the program design the navigation scheme or table of contents or whatever.

What's more, that "extra stuff" isn't necessarily a problem for the end user (the person viewing the Web site). FrontPage isn't just a program for creating public Web pages; it's also used to create documents for intranets. If I'm putting together a business plan, product guide, or personnel directory for use on XYZ Corporation's internal high-speed network, the time that I save on (say) an automatically-generated table of contents may be worth the imperceptible increase in page-load time that results from the code required to support that automatically-generated TOC.

FWIW, techies and Web designers often criticize Word for "code bloat" on HTML pages, and for much the same reason. They're so busy looking at the world through the narrow field of their own binoculars that they don't understand the good reasons why Word works the way it does. In my opinion, their ignorance is less forgivable than the ignorance of some Word users, because--with their background--they should have the common sense to know better.

Leosghost




msg:933282
 4:37 pm on Jan 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

Using google and the precise search string you gave ..I can only find 4 examples existant ( from just over 1000 results which include some of the elements in the search string ..but not restricted to an exact match )..2 belong to near blank pages from a parisien lawyer who cant implement some javascript he got from a free script source ..so he broke his pages
..<meta NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Dreamweaver 4.0">

he may even have added this item himself ..who knows? ..I can write and ask him ..we ( he and I doubtless )have better things to do tho ( actually I might get some work out of it fixing his site :)

the other 2 pages belong to a german site selling double glazing ..I have disguised the site in the "title" ..however the rest is an exact copy ..note he built the site in frontpage :))
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
<title>some german .company, working double glazing
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Dreamweaver">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">

so lord knows how he got his reference to dreamweaver in there ( MS apps don't usually place ads for DW in their generated pages ;))..maybe he copied from the other guy and then remade the pages in frontpage ..again who knows?;)

All other examples than these 4 ( first 4 in serp )do not have
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Dreamweaver">
anywhere in them ..

If I do the same search ..substituting "Frontpage" for "Dreamweaver" I get just over 85,000 entries ( general match to term ) and am still finding a precise match for
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
or variants ie 4 or 6 ..right through the first 10 pages of serps ..

And in almost every case I am finding an exact match in the page headers ....Even found a blog written by a lady from "The Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) Program" explaining why frontpage was set up to do this by default upto FP 2003 to "help you" the following quote from her advice blog "Tina Clarke Microsoft MVP" ( The Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP)..an official microsoft sponsored advice network )
DEAR BILL: The two FrontPage tags are there so that you can see which version is being used to make the site (and as an ad of sorts) and also it tells SOME of the fp icons in folder view (and the other views) which icon needs to be displayed for what is going on. If you notice they are different depending what is happening, like weather a file is open or closed for instance, it does not affect them all, you can find out more about them at. FrontPage Icons

<.meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">

Defines the name of the program which created the web document. This is used for reference purposes only and does not affect search engine placement. The above means it was created in FrontPage 2000.

<.meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">

Used by FrontPage to define SOME of its own icon's within the program and is also
similar to the above meta.

Meta tags impart information to various platforms for example they can tell a browser what character set to use or how tell a search engine about your description and keywords. They go between the head tags.

There are two types of meta tags http-equiv and name. The first gives you extra control over the page by allowing you to define more information to be sent to the browser in the http header.

The second lets you define information external to your document, which might include search engines or spiders etc. You can find out more about them at: Meta Tags Tutorial

One is forced to assume that there is a far greater incedence of Frontapge placing it's sig in headers than of DW doing the same thing ..and as said DW MX doesnt ..and these are the only examples of even a DW 4 "sig" being inserted as the authoring app and 2 from the 4 examples also say the pages were edited with Frontpage ..

After reading your your later posts ( done so whilst I was writing this ..I can assure you that DW MX doesn't "sig" ..DW 4 didn't "sig" either ..inspite of what your "results" pages of serps show you ) ..and can if you wish to sticky me for it give you the link to the MS spokespersons "advice to frontpage owners" blog ( links to blogs from here being against TOS ) in which she is categoric that all frontpage products prior to FP 2003 had the meta enabled by default ..because MS wanted it that way for you ..and that even in FP 2003 it is still "on by default" ..but you can switch it it off ( always supposing you know why , how , and what it was doing anyway ;)

( Ms defaults stuff is always "for your good" ..like "do not show hidden file types" being the default setting by which trojans can get in without you knowing and being able to spot them ..especially if you rely on MS SP1 , SP2 or the MS partners N*rt*on suite etc to protect you on the net )

Thank You! My point exactly! (although pasting <meta name="generator" content="Dreamweaver MX 2004" /> into Yahoo/Google still gives some results)

maybe you need to learn to distinguish .."results" from relevant and actually go look at some of the "results" to see if they are genuine examples ..using "veiw source" ..as I did ..on the pages supposedly returned as "exact matches" as distinct from those which include some of the terms ..and actually don't have the precise example you entered as a "search" on them ..

<edited "speeling" probably missed some ;)

[edited by: Leosghost at 4:47 pm (utc) on Jan. 15, 2006]

This 99 message thread spans 4 pages: 99 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved