Forum Moderators: open
robert
steelrane we've had a number of good threads here that contain a lot of good FP advice from people who use it as their primary development tool. Check out the advice in this thread: Things to be aware of when using FrontPage [webmasterworld.com], and pay attention to the comments by pageoneresults, who outlines some good ways to tame the raw HTML formatting in FP.
If you post some examples of the type of bloat you're trying to remove we might be able to provide some more targeted advice.
Then check out my post in this thread Google search form on WW [webmasterworld.com] on how to add a Google toolbar to WebmasterWorld. This will help you search for things a lot better than the built-in search.
If all else fails post your question in the appropriate forum.
...yes robert, we know you don't like FP...please try to be a bit constructive if you're going to post in FP threads...the FP sucks theme has been beaten to death and serves no purpose...
You are right and I apologize, I had not realized how much I had been doing just that. I guess my point is to try to help people just starting out to use something that is not going to give them a bunch of grief later.
sorry,
robert
Remove Comments
Remove Whitespace
Remove Unused Content
Remove Generated HTML
This is a big change from earlier versions of FP. I'm really impressed with the new HTML editor as well. It's working very well with editing my XHTML sites. Previous versions were never this good.
I have only just started playing with it so am still seeing the new things but if I were starting out with FP I would definitely make sure it was FP 2003.
I really don't have much trouble with it in that way (bloat)
Is 2003 that much better than 2002, like 2002 was THAT much better than any prior version?
Shadows Papa
Is 2003 that much better than 2002, like 2002 was THAT much better than any prior version?
I don't know if it's as big a change as getting tabbed pages in that version but it is a much better program in my opinion.
If you're setting up an in-house Web site that will be viewed only on a high-speed corporate network, you may find it convenient to use automated FP features that generate a fair amount of code. There's nothing wrong with this, despite what some HTML purists may claim; in your networked corporate environment, productivity may be more valuable than bandwidth, and whether a page has 30 Kb of code or 100 Kb is less important than how easy the site is to build and maintain.
If, on the other hand, you're designing a site for the open Web where users may be connecting with dial-up modems, you'll probably want to skip FrontPage's more code-intensive bells and whistles in favor of a simpler approach--e.g., by setting up navigation links manually instead of letting FrontPage do the work for you.
In other words, either approach can be valid depending on what your goals are. One person's "code bloat" can be another person's "productivity," and it's foolish to assume that what may be right for you is right for everyone.
I have always manually inserted my hyperlinks because if you let FP do it they don't work in other browsers like firebird,mozzilla,opera etc.I let FP insert my hyperlinks all the time and have never had browser issues. How is it possible that a hyperlink is incompatible with a browser? I could understand if the resulting page had some plugin or technology that wasn't turned on...but the hyperlinks themselves should be no problem.
have always manually inserted my hyperlinks because if you let FP do it they don't work in other browsers like firebird,mozzilla,opera etc.
In my experience, a URL inserted via the FrontPage dialogue box is no different from a URL that's created manually. Either way, I get mypage.htm or [anysite.com....] (And I've been using FrontPage since version 1.1.)
