XHTML

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dennis D.
  • Start date Start date
D

Dennis D.

W3C http://www.w3c.org/ standards are running at a sprint to get away
current formatting and layout issues. For those of you who are just starting
a website, you surely want to read up on XML, XHTML, and CSS. Many builders
are moving toward pages that do not use tables to display layout. Rather,
layout is done with CSS positioning based on what is called the Box Method.

More importantly, developers are being urged to study their organization and
current website(s) to consider two things prior to design and (re)coding.
Those are Knowledge Management and Ease of Use, which go to the organization
and presentation of content.

The idea is that if the information is properly organized it will be easier
for the Webmaster to reach into the X(HT)ML development paradigm and code
the site. As a result of the preliminary, the site will prove to be more
useful not only internally to the company, but also to vendors and clients.

Some companies are already using software that helps them create 'virtual'
companies consisting of their own core business representations added to
pieces of their vendor's networks, and including layered client interfaces.
This technology is built on XML using the ideas the technology brings with
it.

From the FrontPage prospective, I've used FP2000 to (help) build XHTML
(strict) pages. Site construction under the new rules institutes a new
learning curve. At the same time, XHTML and CSS are still evolving.

Personally, I'm taking a time to learn and practice the art prior to
launching a new site, and I've been at it for several months. At some point
FrontPage 2003 will become available. The big question will be if the
webhosting services are going to support it, and more importantly if my
service will support it.

I've talked to my hosting service, and they have not developed any plans to
support the new software. The hosting services, and site developers are
going to incure significant costs if they want to provide support for this
upgrade. My guess is that it is going to take longer than usual for the
gyrations to level out. While I can develop the code, it may be awhile
before hosting sites catch up with the demands the technology will place on
them. It's going to take some time for their people to get up to speed as
well.

Comments would be appreciated.
 
I've talked to my hosting service, and they have not developed any plans
to

What costs are speaking of? FrontPage 2003 will work just fine on any host
running the 2000 or later Server Extensions, and that's 99.9% (guess) of the
hosts out there.

If you're talking about the features that Windows SharePoint Services bring
to FrontPage (which use XML, XSL, XSLT, and XPath), I might agree (since it
will also require an upgrade to Windows Server 2003), but I'm not sure what
extra costs you expect for XHTML support.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
I'm going to agree with Jim.

I've been playing around with the FP 2003 beta and unless you are wanting to
use the SharePoint functions there is nothing required beyond what is
currently being used by most hosting companies. SharePoint Team Services
have been around for a couple of years but few web hosts support them. I
don't expect that to change anytime soon. It would be nice but I don't
expect it for either the current version of SharePoint Team Services which
are on the FP 2002 cd or the Windows Server 2003 SharePoint Services.

There are no new FrontPage Server Extensions. The functions that use server
extensions use FrontPage 2002 Server Extensions.

Most of the sites I've created in the last year have been XHTML and CSS2.
They run on a variety of servers from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2000 on MS
based servers to FreeBSD and various Linux distrubutions for the non-Windows
servers. No special support on any of them for XHTML.

Even using databases gives you the choice of ASP or ASP.NET so you don't
have to upgrade to a host that supports ASP.NET.
 
Hello Jim:
Yes I'm specifically speaking to the use of XML and SQL enabled services
provided by Sharepoint and SQL Server which requires upgrading server
software. First point is that the functions incorporated into Sharepoint are
increasing exponentially. Soon enough FP users won't be able to avoid it.
Secondly, as a FP user I expect full functionality out of the software, and
from whomever supports it. Don't tell me (as a hosting service) that you
support FrontPage, but don't support Sharepoint Services or SQL. Third I
guess would be the whole idea that MS is moving away from extensions, and
sooner or later anyone using MS Software will be required to upgrade anyway.

This particular round of upgrades sees a significant increase in costs
across the board for MS Software beginning with the operating system. What
was the increase for Visual Studio.net? Went from $600 to $1000. or about
the same as my electric bill percentage wise.

Not to be pissing and moaning about the costs, but I think there are going
to be increases amounting to ~30% for just about everything from software to
services. That's going to cause a lot of people to re-think the benefits of
their hobbies, and other people will think about the real advantages
provided by sustaining a website. Worse, this comes at a time when the
technology is changing quickly and radically. Everyone will be scrambling to
do something, and find that it's easier to talk about than accomplish, and
you get the related costs of the learning curves.

Personally, I like the technologies. They have been a long time coming, and
smart businesses are already seeing both benefits and potential benefits.
There are just a heck of a lot of stingy people out there when it comes to
IT budgeting for infrastructure upgrades. One day I was doing MS Access
programming. The next day I was driving a fork lift, and still am. All the
while the company is raking in millions from relatively small burps of
infrastructure investment.
 
Back
Top