«

In article < >, "Abdullah Kahn" <> wrote:
>Which one do I need to buy ? Which is the best ?? Price doesn't matter , I
>am prepared to pay for a good progran.

Neither one. Both of them produce bloated crap HTML. Dreamweaver has the
additional "advantage" of being difficult to use. FrontPage is just garbage.

On Nov 17, 11:20*pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

> Neither one. Both of them produce bloated crap HTML. Dreamweaver has the
> additional "advantage" of being difficult to use. FrontPage is just garbage.

Both claims regarding Dreamweaver are untrue, the key being that you'd
need to spend about 10 minutes in the Preferences to set it up
properly. But after doing so, it can generate (X)HTML code as clean as
hand coding, and can be quite simple to use.

Contrary to another reply, neither DW nor Expression Web are
WYSIWYG ... in fact, there really is no such thing. They may be
WYSIA(lmost)WYG with regard to simple Web pages. However, as another
reply noted, when you start to get into more complex sites that move
beyond primarily HTML, DW does have limitations and in particular, the
Javascript it generates is lousy.

Like everything else, these are TOOLS. Best advice is to utilize trial
versions (of these and other programs) and use what you are most
comfortable with, and what produces the results you want.

In article <95e59bbf-b79c-4856-b85c->, Kevin Scholl <> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 11:20=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> Neither one. Both of them produce bloated crap HTML. Dreamweaver has the
>> additional "advantage" of being difficult to use. FrontPage is just garba=
>ge.
>
>Both claims regarding Dreamweaver are untrue, the key being that you'd
>need to spend about 10 minutes in the Preferences to set it up
>properly. But after doing so, it can generate (X)HTML code as clean as
>hand coding, and can be quite simple to use.

You've apparently confused Dreamweaver with some other product that's actually
easy to use.

In article <ic4p7l$c5q$>,
says...
> In article <95e59bbf-b79c-4856-b85c->, Kevin Scholl <> wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 11:20=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >
> >> Neither one. Both of them produce bloated crap HTML. Dreamweaver has the
> >> additional "advantage" of being difficult to use. FrontPage is just garba=
> >ge.
> >
> >Both claims regarding Dreamweaver are untrue, the key being that you'd
> >need to spend about 10 minutes in the Preferences to set it up
> >properly. But after doing so, it can generate (X)HTML code as clean as
> >hand coding, and can be quite simple to use.
>
> You've apparently confused Dreamweaver with some other product that's actually
> easy to use.
>

It's not difficult to use. I don't use it as a design tool though, just
as a coding tool and for that purpose it's more than suitable.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

On Nov 18, 10:00*pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <95e59bbf-b79c-4856-b85c-4119252cd...@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups..com>, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 17, 11:20=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >> Neither one. Both of them produce bloated crap HTML. Dreamweaver has the
> >> additional "advantage" of being difficult to use. FrontPage is just garba=
> >ge.
>
> >Both claims regarding Dreamweaver are untrue, the key being that you'd
> >need to spend about 10 minutes in the Preferences to set it up
> >properly. But after doing so, it can generate (X)HTML code as clean as
> >hand coding, and can be quite simple to use.
>
> You've apparently confused Dreamweaver with some other product that's actually
> easy to use.

You've apparently never tried it yourself ... and ten minutes in the
trial doesn't count. Dreamweaver isn't hard to use, or to set up,
unless you're in a hurry and can't take a few minutes to learn the lay
of the land. Another poster's claim that "most people" take a 6-month
course in DW to learn how to use it is rubbish as well. DW is no
harder to learn to use than an Office application.