«

Hello everyone,

I'm relatively new to web design and I'm working on a fairly public project
to get my feet wet. I've started to notice that something I'll create in
Frontpage viewed with IE6 looks different (how I want it to look, actually)
from Netscape 7 and Mozilla 1.5 (well... yeah.) They're not major
differences, they're mainly small displacements with a table. In IE6, it'll
be lined up perfectly how I want it, with each image coming together
flawlessly, but in the other browsers it's shifted to the left 2-3 pixels.
Odd thing is, it's not ALL tables, just the ones with cellpadding or
cellspacing anything other than 0. Editing the page in the Netscape Composer
lets me fix the problem, but then it looks bad in IE.

I also noticed a problem where the cellspacing in a cell wasn't working
correctly in Netscape/Mozilla while it worked in IE.

Does anyone have any tips they can offer, perhaps something I'm missing? If
you need me to post the source code, I can do that, but for now I'll assume
there's some kind of well-known cross-browser fact I'm overlooking being an
amateur .

Regards,
Orlando

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:41:58 GMT, "Orlando de Frias"
<> declared in alt.html:

> Does anyone have any tips they can offer, perhaps something I'm missing?

1) Ditch Frontpage.
2) No, really. Run as far away from Frontpage as you can.
3) Read through the specs. Then read them again.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/

> If you need me to post the source code, I can do that, but for now I'll assume
> there's some kind of well-known cross-browser fact I'm overlooking being an
> amateur .

4) Despite the cargo-cult that believes otherwise, slicing up images
causes the load time for the page to *increase*, not decrease. Plus you
run into problems such as you described.
5) Tables aren't meant to be used for layout. They are for tabular data.
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
6) Don't use IE for testing. It is broken. Use Mozilla/Opera, then test
in IE once they look right.
7) Don't forget to validate.
http://validator.w3.org/ for (X)HTML
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ for CSS.
Throughout all the above, lurk in alt.html.
9) If you want, once the site is done (or getting there), post the URL
over in alt.html.critique.
10) Have fun!

HTH

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:41:58 GMT, "Orlando de Frias"
<> wrote:

>I'm relatively new to web design and I'm working on a fairly public project
>to get my feet wet. I've started to notice that something I'll create in
>Frontpage viewed with IE6 looks different (how I want it to look, actually)

Simply put, Frontpage is horrendous. For a very simple explanation, go
to http://validator.w3.org/ and ask it to look for mistakes in your webpage.
First, you'll notice that Frontpage failed to specify a DOCTYPE, which is
what tells a browser what version of HTML it's supposed to use when
interpreting the page. If you fix that manually, you'll likely find numerous
other mistakes in the HTML code, depending on how elaborate your page is.

The "bright side" is that most of the drones out there are using IE because
it came on their computer, and they haven't bothered to see if there's
anything better out there, and FrontPage's problem code is rendered
"correctly" by IE (more accurately, it renders the same way as FP's WYSIWYG
editor, since it's the same rendering engine, and interprets bad code the
same way), so it'll look fine for people using that particular browser.
That's only a bright side if you want to cater only to IE users (and plenty
of web masters are content with that).

>cellspacing anything other than 0. Editing the page in the Netscape Composer
>lets me fix the problem, but then it looks bad in IE.

It's possible that Composer's HTML code is just as problematic as
FrontPage's, though I'd be surprised if it's _that_ bad.

>Does anyone have any tips they can offer, perhaps something I'm missing? If
>you need me to post the source code, I can do that, but for now I'll assume
>there's some kind of well-known cross-browser fact I'm overlooking being an
>amateur .

I've found that I get a lot more specific help from people here if I post my
work-in-progress web pages someplace (on a web server) and include a URL with
the message. That way, people can look at the HTML code and explain the
problems as they see them. Personally, I'd start with the validator first,
though. Fix the problems it points out as well as you can, and then post a
web page for people here to look at. There may well be HTML validator errors
you can't figure out (I found plenty of those when I was trying to figure out
HTML 4.01 Strict), and people here can give you much more detailed
explanations of what is wrong

>
>Regards,
>Orlando
>


--
Erik Harris n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com
AIM: KngFuJoe http://www.eharrishome.com
Chinese-Indonesian MA Club http://cimac.eharrishome.com

The above email address is obfuscated to try to prevent SPAM.
Replace each dollar sign with an "e" for the correct address.

In article <5o28r4osuls6.1whcoo457jyow$.>,
says...
> > Does anyone have any tips they can offer, perhaps something I'm missing?
> 1) Ditch Frontpage.
> 2) No, really. Run as far away from Frontpage as you can.

Well the first thing you have to do is ignore people with closed minds
that offer advice like "ditch frontpage... No Really Run....

Evaluate the stupidity of that line. It puts the rest of the advice in
proper prospective...

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

In article <>, n$wsr$ader@
$harrishom$.com says...
> Simply put, Frontpage is horrendous.

Front page is no different than any other editor. The fault is with the
developer, not the tool.

> The "bright side" is that most of the drones out there are using IE because
> it came on their computer...

Read MOST s 90% of your visitors.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

Wow, just checked that CSS and I must say I'm impressed. I don't even want
to continue the way I'm doing things now... I want to just stop and learn
the CSS way .

I have another question though. What makes Frontpage so bad? I just noticed
it while validating (sheesh!) Is there an editor you recommend? Is
Dreamweaver any better? I've trolled around many newsgroups trying to find
information to help me out with any question I might have had, and never saw
anyone mention Frontpage being the big bad program it obviously is, so I
figured I was safe.

Anywho, I'm going to take the advice you and Erik Harris gave me. Thanks a
bunch!

Regards,
Orlando de Frias

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 06:01:36 -0500, Whitecrest <> wrote:

>In article <>, n$wsr$ader@
>$harrishom$.com says...
>> Simply put, Frontpage is horrendous.
>
>Front page is no different than any other editor. The fault is with the
>developer, not the tool.

But when the tool is an HTML editor, and is incapable of generating actual
HTML code, the best developer in the world can't change the fact that
Frontpage is horrendous. Debugging a page that Frontpage made would take
longer than making it in the first place is.

>> The "bright side" is that most of the drones out there are using IE because
>> it came on their computer...

>Read MOST s 90% of your visitors.

As I said, yes, most people use IE (however, 90% is an exaggeration), and
most of the people that use IE use it simply because they don't know any
better. But popularity doesn't make it better. For some reason, an old joke
comes to mind: "eat sh!t! One billion flies can't be wrong!"

--
Erik Harris n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com
AIM: KngFuJoe http://www.eharrishome.com
Chinese-Indonesian MA Club http://cimac.eharrishome.com

The above email address is obfuscated to try to prevent SPAM.
Replace each dollar sign with an "e" for the correct address.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:56:18 GMT, "Orlando de Frias"
<> wrote:

>I have another question though. What makes Frontpage so bad? I just noticed
>it while validating (sheesh!) Is there an editor you recommend? Is
>Dreamweaver any better? I've trolled around many newsgroups trying to find

I don't know why FP is so bad. You'd have to ask MS why their editor can't
follow even the most basic rules that W3C set aside for HTML.

As for better editors, I use a text editor (UltraEdit, but there are plenty
of other editors that have HTML syntax hilighting as well), so I can't really
offer any help of my own there. I have saved some old newsgroup postings on
this subject, though. The most comprehensive of them is this one:

=-=-=-=-=-
From: brucie <>
Newsgroups: alt.html
Subject: Re: any free html editors any good???
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:41:43 +1000

In post <rKPEa.912940$Zo.209227@sccrnsc03>
bbxrider said...
[any free html editors any good]

> hoping to get some input before i go thru another learning curve

free:
jedit: http://www.jedit.org/
araneae: http://www.araneae.com/
crimson: http://crimsoneditor.com/
acehtml: http://freeware.acehtml.com/
notetab light: http://www.notetab.com/
html-kit: http://www.chami.com/html-kit/
quanta (linux): http://quanta.sourceforge.net/
notespad: http://www.newbie.net/NotesPad/index.html
grey matter pro: http://www.pagetutor.com/misc/grey.html
stones webwrite: http://www.webwriter.dk/english/index.htm
matizha sublime: http://www.matizha.com/en/products/sublime/

not free:
textpad: http://www.textpad.com/
notetab: http://www.notetab.com/
editplus: http://www.editplus.com/
ultraedit: http://www.idmcomp.com/
editpad: http://www.editpadpro.com/
dreamweaver: http://www.macromedia.com/
hypertext studio: http://www.olsonsoft.com/
namo: http://www.namo.com/products/webeditor/
acehtml pro: http://www.visicommedia.com/acehtml/
ibm websphere: http://www-3.ibm.com/software/webservers/hpbuilder/




--
brucie a. blackford. 09/June/2003 09:36:24 am kilo.
=-=-=-=-=-

--
Erik Harris n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com
AIM: KngFuJoe http://www.eharrishome.com
Chinese-Indonesian MA Club http://cimac.eharrishome.com

The above email address is obfuscated to try to prevent SPAM.
Replace each dollar sign with an "e" for the correct address.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:22:00 -0500, Erik Harris wrote:

> free:

You missed Vim:

www.vim.org

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffrey AT jhu DOT edu
Website | http://www.wse.jhu.edu/newtnotes/

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:59:25 -0500, Whitecrest wrote:

> In article <5o28r4osuls6.1whcoo457jyow$.>,
> says...
>> > Does anyone have any tips they can offer, perhaps something I'm missing?
>> 1) Ditch Frontpage.
>> 2) No, really. Run as far away from Frontpage as you can.
>
> Well the first thing you have to do is ignore people with closed minds
> that offer advice like "ditch frontpage... No Really Run....
>
> Evaluate the stupidity of that line. It puts the rest of the advice in
> proper prospective...

Please, then, give me one good reason why this person should use
FrontPage. Really, Whitcrest. You give out this "ignore people with
closed minds" advice quite a bit, it seems, (well, at least, more than
once). But the simple reality is that FrontPage is Not Good (TM) and
nothing open or closed about my mind (or others) is going to change that
fact.

FrontPage has ONE thing going for it: market share/popularity. MOST
people use IE. MOST people use Windows. MOST novice HTML authors seem to
learn on FrontPage. etc.

With that said, though, I have yet to see a "good" HTML page generated by
FrontPage. I *have* seen some pretty darn good Dreamweaver pages, so I
know it is possible for a WYSIWYG tool to generate decent HTML. But this
group is alt.html and that is why the overwhelming response to people
using FrontPage is to ditch it! FrontPage SUCKS as an HTML tool, plain and
simple!!!

later...

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffrey AT jhu DOT edu
Website | http://www.wse.jhu.edu/newtnotes/