Why should we NOT used shared borders?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bum Leg
  • Start date Start date
B

Bum Leg

Could someone wxplain why, when using FP, we should not used the shared
borders feature? I get the impression that it is very much not
reccommended, but I'm not sure why. Is it that using shared borders makes
our pages incompatible with other web design programs, or makes us reliant
on FP extensions? Or something else entirely?

Also, if we don't use shared borders, how do we best have, say, a top and
bottom that appear on every page of our sites?

thanks--

Bum
 
Use the FP Include Page component where it can be inserted anywhere on your
page when using tables to structure your page layout, thereby removing the
limitation of shared borders where you are limited to the 4 positions on a
page, and can only one in each position.

--

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

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but wouldn't this mean you'd have to
MANUALLY put the include page component on every page of your site? My site
has 550-600 pages at the moment, and anything that requires me to deal with
each of them individually is really not happening.

I have a top and bottom shared border, but I'm trying to figure out if
there's another way that is as easy to do as shared borders. i've never used
the include function, and would be excited to have the flexibility, but . .
..

Unless there is some way to use it via Find and Replace . . . ?

Thanks,

Bum
 
Bum Leg said:
Could someone wxplain why, when using FP, we should not used the shared
borders feature? I get the impression that it is very much not
reccommended, but I'm not sure why. Is it that using shared borders makes
our pages incompatible with other web design programs, or makes us reliant
on FP extensions? Or something else entirely?

Also, if we don't use shared borders, how do we best have, say, a top and
bottom that appear on every page of our sites?

thanks--

Bum
Click to expand...

Use what is right for you. Include Components give better control, and with
proper planning are MUCH easier to deal with.

Shared Borders have wizards associated with them and require less planning.

Note, that there are some bugs in shared borders (and navigation components)
that can blow your whole navigation structure away. Shared borders are also
pretty difficult to deal with when using things like JavaScript in them.

You see a lot of talk about shared borders because people notice their
limitations (and to a certain extent, do not understand them). If you do
not mind the limitations, then they are doing their job.
 
Thanks to all who replied above. I have switched one of my sites (a
comparatively small one with 50 or so pages) to Include Page. For the
moment I simply saved my previous shared borders as pages, and then included
those at the top and bottom.

I have found that with the Search & Replace in teh HTML you can insert
Include Pages pretty readily across the whole site, if the site is
reasonably consistent. For example, in one case I could search for <Body>
and replace it with <Body><!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="top.htm"
TAG="BODY" -->. This worked very well for the top banner in my pages and
also contained my sitewide top level navigation menu.

You can something quite similar for a bottom menu by search for the close of
the </Body> tag.

Of course, to do something more complex, positioning etc., this kind of
thing might not work at all.

I wonder if either the Include Page function, or the Shared Borders function
rely _in any way_ on teh FP Extensions? One of the sites I tend is on a
university server and they will not use the FP Extensions (citing them as
security risk--I dunno), so I have to be sure that site does not rely in any
way on the FP Extensions.

Thanks--

Bum
 
No
Both are design time tools

Except for the new FP 2002 Shared border background colors / images which do require the FP 2002 SE

--



| Thanks to all who replied above. I have switched one of my sites (a
| comparatively small one with 50 or so pages) to Include Page. For the
| moment I simply saved my previous shared borders as pages, and then included
| those at the top and bottom.
|
| I have found that with the Search & Replace in teh HTML you can insert
| Include Pages pretty readily across the whole site, if the site is
| reasonably consistent. For example, in one case I could search for <Body>
| and replace it with <Body><!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="top.htm"
| TAG="BODY" -->. This worked very well for the top banner in my pages and
| also contained my sitewide top level navigation menu.
|
| You can something quite similar for a bottom menu by search for the close of
| the </Body> tag.
|
| Of course, to do something more complex, positioning etc., this kind of
| thing might not work at all.
|
| I wonder if either the Include Page function, or the Shared Borders function
| rely _in any way_ on teh FP Extensions? One of the sites I tend is on a
| university server and they will not use the FP Extensions (citing them as
| security risk--I dunno), so I have to be sure that site does not rely in any
| way on the FP Extensions.
|
| Thanks--
|
| Bum
|
| | > Use the FP Include Page component where it can be inserted anywhere on
| your
| > page when using tables to structure your page layout, thereby removing the
| > limitation of shared borders where you are limited to the 4 positions on a
| > page, and can only one in each position.
| >
| > --
| >
| > ==============================================
| > Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
| > WEBMASTER Resources(tm)
| >
| > FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
| > MS KB Quick Links, etc.
| > ==============================================
| > To assist you in getting the best answers for FrontPage support see:
| > http://www.net-sites.com/sitebuilder/newsgroups.asp
| >
| > | > > Could someone wxplain why, when using FP, we should not used the shared
| > > borders feature? I get the impression that it is very much not
| > > reccommended, but I'm not sure why. Is it that using shared borders
| makes
| > > our pages incompatible with other web design programs, or makes us
| reliant
| > > on FP extensions? Or something else entirely?
| > >
| > > Also, if we don't use shared borders, how do we best have, say, a top
| and
| > > bottom that appear on every page of our sites?
| > >
| > > thanks--
| > >
| > > Bum
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
 
Bum Leg said:
Of course, to do something more complex, positioning etc., this kind of
thing might not work at all.
Click to expand...

You can place an Include page inside elements, such as <td> or <div> so
positioning shouldn't preclude you from using them. I've got a design I'm
working on that is 100% css layout with mixed positioning and float. I've
successfully placed an Include within this design.
 
no, i get that. i was thinking that the bold stroke of a sitewaide HTML
search and replace might not be so easy to design--remember, the site i'm
working has 500-600 pages, all the same format but different content (a lit
magazine), so whatever I do has to be doable by S&Replace in the code. At
present I can't imagine hand-doing 500-600 pages.

also, is your site up and viewable? would like to see it as an example.

thanks,

b. leg
 
Back
Top