Forum Moderators: phranque
I have built small websites working directly with the host server including a PHP application.
A webmaster posted info suggesting that I might find it useful to simply download Apache to my one PC. I'm interested because, while I work well with software, I don't do well with computer gadgets.
Would a local Apache installation be of any value in developing the website? Might it be useful in convincing me that I need a separate local server?
I hope you're not really using Word to develop HTML pages -- or worse, planning on publishing Word documents on the Web. Word 'writes' simply awful HTML, and if you put Word documents on the Web, then only people with Microsoft Office installed will be able to read them... HTML pages and PDF documents are the current 'standards' on the Web.
Jim
I have had some success with PHP but am not learned in Scripts. Actually I don't see a need for "dynamic" in my developing website.
I am at or close to the "journeyman" level in css, certainly not a master. I have 3 page templates that I have developed for my upcoming site. I've tested them in most screen resolutions, text sizes & zooms.
I basically hand code using FrontPage which I've gotten used to.
However, the new website will be big. I need to check my thinking about the value, in my case, of a local server. I thought that if it made any sense I might download Apache and begin to get familiar with it.
Jim
I mentioned Word only to emphasize my preoccupation with content. I find it easiest and most useful to develop material in Word. Instant spell check and grammar challenges are useful.
I've never used Word to create web pages, in fact, I spent some years in an MS Support group (via Usenet) pestering folks (both users and MVP's) of the perils of this bad practice. Although the time spent was tedious, the MVP's and/or MS have changed their outlook on using Word to create web page. Word was never intended to create web pages, rather, was intended to be a transport medium to allow the return of Word documents to their original Word format.
For many years Front Page was blamed for the creation of bloated web pages, when in fact, these pages were being created by Word. Thus, my MS Support group (via Usenet) pestering venture.
I basically hand code using FrontPage which I've gotten used to.
I did this also for quite a while.
Making the further transition to an html editor is no big deal and prevents the occasional error caused by copying and pasting under a Windows atmosphere and into FP (i. e., addition of bloated html and/or deprecated html).
Most of the html editors offer both spell and grammar checkers. The key to spell checkers is in the expanded dictionary, focused upon your particular subject materials.
First Page is a free html editor with an earlier version (First Page 2000) being preferred by most over the most recent versions.
MS Front Page can also cause some problems with CSS.
BTW believe the last version of MS-FP was 2003 and then the product was dropped from the MS line and removed from the MS Office package. A new product was created (name escapes me) and is sold separately.
The criticisms of FrontPage came primarily from folks who had never delved into its configuration menus to tell it to produce minimal HTML output. For example, turning off "pretty print" to avoid the large number of space characters used to 'format' the HTML code to show its structure. Pretty print was helpful when developing pages, but could easily double the page size, and so should have been turned of for actual 'publication' on the Web.
Somewhere between hand-coding content-rich pages (hand-coding isn't something I'd want to do in that case) and using Word to directly-produce HTML, there is likely a good trade-off between productivity and producing standards-compliant, lean HTML pages. For example, I sometimes take text from e-mails and Word documents and paste it into SeaMonkey Composer (formerly Netscape Composer, then Mozilla Composer) and use that to do the basic HTML page formatting. Then I'll go over it with an HTML text editor/validator and clean it up so that it validates and is lean 'n mean.
Like many things, each Webmaster has to find his own path to Nirvana, and there are many tools on many paths to help you along.
Jim
I never allow FP to produce any code. I work through my own templates that are FP files. I call up "Z Template A" (my code)in FrontPage. I save it to its new name, delete minimal existing content and paste in the new content. The page is already structured and has been validated. I rely heavily on css style sheets. I simply do the headlines, the paragraphing, any list code, etc. where needed.
FP has an excellent search and replace function which I have found to be useful. I believe that it will be very useful on a large site.
I can't visualize what else might be done. So I'm inclined to take a look at First Page (2006) which appears to be free?
FP has an excellent search and replace function which I have found to be useful. I believe that it will be very useful on a large site.
gstick,
I use a free tool named, "Search and Replace 98", even though the free version is limited to single queries (requiring closing and reopening), it's quite an effective tool and has saved me tremendous time.
I am looking at SeaMonkey. I found XML editor. My style sheets validate. However, validating a typical page for CSS I get the error message "java.lang.Exception: Unknown file"
What is the meaning/significance of this? Or should I be asking on a different Forum?
You might have more luck with this issue in one of our "Browser-side" forums, or in the "WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors" forum (I'm not sure where you're getting this error message from, or what you're doing when you get it).
Jim
