2003 Working with Code

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian G.
  • Start date Start date
B

Brian G.

I'm confused with the direction MS is taking with 2003. I design small sites
and have been using 2000 for 3 years. MS has always been known for making
things easier to do with their software, but with 2003 I'm not so sure. I
can certainly see that 2003 is a major advancement over 2000, but is it
aimed more at people who work directly with the various codes that make up a
Web?

I'm not someone who likes to work in html view although I use it sometimes
to make changes if something doesn't look right in design view. I see the
new split view, quick tag selector/quick tag editor, IntelliSense, etc.

I'm really not whining, I'm just trying to understand. Is a major shift away
from the simplistic approach that MS has been using because of all the
advancements on the Internet or am I overreacting? Thanks from some of you
coders to someone who's confused.
 
Hi Brian,

It is not so much to code as I believe it is to catch up with DreamWeavers
lead in the professional market place. A major question asked during Beta 1
was what is in DW that you'd like to see in FP. If MS can match the features
or improve upon them and still have full MSO integration then the war will
be won.
 
Hi Mike,

Because I design small sites I just need something that helps me design a
visually appealing site. DW is overkill, and now with 2003, it may be
overkill too. I think MS used to tout FP as being used to design Web sites
"without knowing one line of code". Will that continue with 2003?
 
I'm really not whining, I'm just trying to understand. Is a major shift
away
from the simplistic approach that MS has been using because of all the
advancements on the Internet or am I overreacting? Thanks from some of you
coders to someone who's confused.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

FrontPage has been evolving as the Internet and web technologies evolve:

In the beginning, there was static HTML. And FrontPage hovered over the face
of the HTML, and reflected its' simplicity. And it was good.

And the software gods said "Let there be active web technologies, to enable
web pages to dynamically change their content, and interact with software on
the server." And Microsoft gave FrontPage the ability to work with those
technologies which Microsoft provided, and some others. And it was good.

And the HTML gods said "Let there be Cascading Style Sheets, and XML, and
other HTML technologies to extend the functionality of the browser, and
enable web developers to have more granular control over their web sites,
and make them extensible." And it was so. And Microsoft gave FrontPage the
ability to work with the new Standards, and added more tools to FrontPage to
enable it to work with these new Standards and technologies. And it was
good.

And the WorldWide Web prospered, and many people became greedy without
knowledge, and made bad investments, and the great DotCom Crash happened,
and changed the face of the WorldWide Web, killing off many of the smaller
and less-adaptable species of web sites.

And the software gods said "Let there be SOAP, and .Net, and SharePoint, and
a plethora of programming technologies to extend the functionality of web
sites so that nothing may hinder us from communicating, collaborating, and
accessing all sorts of data from anywhere in the world." And it was so.

And the demands of all of these technologies dictated that more Internet
developers be programmers, and those who did not adapt were forced to find
other work. And the population of web developers increasingly became those
who had mastered the arts of programming. And Microsoft gave FrontPage the
ability to work with the new Internet programming technologies, with more
tools suitable for advanced web development, and the ability to compete with
Dreamweaver. And it was good.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
http://www.takempis.com
Big Things are made up of
Lots of Little Things.
 
Brian,

For the most part nothing has changed in FP3 you can still do all the things
that you do in FP2 but if you wish you can now use additional features. For
example, instead of creating a table layout you can have FP3 do it via
templated table layouts.

All those things will seem daunting now but over time they will be learned
and used. As for code you can use it or get tools that produce it for you. I
program and I have a number of tools that produce code for me. My time is
valuable so I only program what I have to.

The most distressing thing I see in FP3 is that the FP Server Extensions are
not being enhanced and MS has made the statement that they will be phased
out. This will mean that you'll have to come up with email, form support,
etc. at some time when the extension are dropped. Note that FP3 now supports
FTP site publishing the precursor to DW like functionality? I believe so.
 
IMHO 2002 is what you should look into.
that and a good image program such as Photoshop or (my fav. for ease of use)
PhotoImpact from www.ulead.com
HTH
 
Yes, Brian. That is continued in FrontPage 2003 if that's the way you want
to work. In fact, that premise has been extended to an incredible degree in
FrontPage 2003. There are many things that could not be done previously
without writing code that can now be done without looking at a single line
of code using features such as Behaviors and Interactive Buttons.

I think you will find FrontPage 2003 makes it even easier for those who
don't want to look at the code. At the same time, it also makes it easier
for those who DO want to work with the code. It truly is the best of both
worlds.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===================================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
Order it today!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2UELLO8CHO&isbn=0789729547&itm=7
 
Hi Jim,

Thanks for your reassuring answer.
Jim Cheshire said:
Brian,

These features are all additions to FrontPage for those who DO like to get
into the code. For those who don't, you can continue to use FrontPage the
way that you always have.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===================================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
Order it today!
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2UELLO8CHO&isbn=0789729547&itm=7



up
Click to expand...
 
I like it Kevin, a poetic quality about it.

My view is similar to Jim's. My husband prefers to work on his one website
in design view and writes very, very little code for his web pages. It isn't
because he doesn't know how to code, he's a VB programmer but writing code
for websites just isn't something he chooses to do.

I on the other hand tend to work in split mode because I feel it gives me
the best of both worlds. Good clean code (I love Intellisense) but the
ability to drop down into the design window when I'm just adding text or
want to quickly add something. Personally, I'm very glad to see a bit less
proprietary code and more behaviors that use common javascript instead of
java applets.

I'll also admit to being a bit lazy at times. While I can and frequently do
write asp or asp.net from scratch but the ability to drop a quick database
result table in or send results to a database without writing the insert
statement is a nice feature to have.
 
Now if the browser Gods would say:
Let there be no Browser version on any PC older than 2 years,
We would all go out and rest in the fifth day!

--




| > I'm really not whining, I'm just trying to understand. Is a major shift
| away
| > from the simplistic approach that MS has been using because of all the
| > advancements on the Internet or am I overreacting? Thanks from some of you
| > coders to someone who's confused.
|
| Hi Brian,
|
| FrontPage has been evolving as the Internet and web technologies evolve:
|
| In the beginning, there was static HTML. And FrontPage hovered over the face
| of the HTML, and reflected its' simplicity. And it was good.
|
| And the software gods said "Let there be active web technologies, to enable
| web pages to dynamically change their content, and interact with software on
| the server." And Microsoft gave FrontPage the ability to work with those
| technologies which Microsoft provided, and some others. And it was good.
|
| And the HTML gods said "Let there be Cascading Style Sheets, and XML, and
| other HTML technologies to extend the functionality of the browser, and
| enable web developers to have more granular control over their web sites,
| and make them extensible." And it was so. And Microsoft gave FrontPage the
| ability to work with the new Standards, and added more tools to FrontPage to
| enable it to work with these new Standards and technologies. And it was
| good.
|
| And the WorldWide Web prospered, and many people became greedy without
| knowledge, and made bad investments, and the great DotCom Crash happened,
| and changed the face of the WorldWide Web, killing off many of the smaller
| and less-adaptable species of web sites.
|
| And the software gods said "Let there be SOAP, and .Net, and SharePoint, and
| a plethora of programming technologies to extend the functionality of web
| sites so that nothing may hinder us from communicating, collaborating, and
| accessing all sorts of data from anywhere in the world." And it was so.
|
| And the demands of all of these technologies dictated that more Internet
| developers be programmers, and those who did not adapt were forced to find
| other work. And the population of web developers increasingly became those
| who had mastered the arts of programming. And Microsoft gave FrontPage the
| ability to work with the new Internet programming technologies, with more
| tools suitable for advanced web development, and the ability to compete with
| Dreamweaver. And it was good.
|
| --
| HTH,
|
| Kevin Spencer
| Microsoft MVP
| .Net Developer
| http://www.takempis.com
| Big Things are made up of
| Lots of Little Things.
|
|
| | > I'm confused with the direction MS is taking with 2003. I design small
| sites
| > and have been using 2000 for 3 years. MS has always been known for making
| > things easier to do with their software, but with 2003 I'm not so sure. I
| > can certainly see that 2003 is a major advancement over 2000, but is it
| > aimed more at people who work directly with the various codes that make up
| a
| > Web?
| >
| > I'm not someone who likes to work in html view although I use it sometimes
| > to make changes if something doesn't look right in design view. I see the
| > new split view, quick tag selector/quick tag editor, IntelliSense, etc.
| >
| > I'm really not whining, I'm just trying to understand. Is a major shift
| away
| > from the simplistic approach that MS has been using because of all the
| > advancements on the Internet or am I overreacting? Thanks from some of you
| > coders to someone who's confused.
| >
| >
|
|
 
Cheryl,

I have to say that you are a brave soul. Publishing your email address on an
NG had to take resolve in this day and age ;>)
 
Isn't that kind of up to us? If web designers continue to design to NS 4 or
some other broken browser standard then what promotes the movement to new
browsers such as NS 7 / IE 6.

There are major sites, http://www.espn.com , that no longer support old
browsers and redirect you to update your browser. If we would all do that it
and convince our clients to do it, then it would not be long before the
standards were raised to new browsers.

OTSB,
 
Do you really think folks are going to download a 15MB+ download via dialup
just to visit a particular web site. Broadband is not available everywhere.
Also many user of "older" browsers are happy with their browsers.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
Back
Top