<meta name="Microsoft Border" content="t">

prevent me from doing so because the value of attribute "NAME" has to be a single token.

Any workarounds for this? Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Linda

http://validator.w3.org/

You will see the message I mentioned. I can't find any way around this. This one little thing will prevent you from creating a FrontPage web page (with shared borders) with valid HTML 4.01 code.

If you find a workaround, please let me know. I wonder if FP 2002 addresses this?

Thanks!

Crispy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crispy:
]

You will see the message I mentioned. I can't find any way around this. This one little thing will prevent you from creating a FrontPage web page (with shared borders) with valid HTML 4.01 code.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if FP 2002 addresses this?

---

That's a joke, right?

------------------
Gil Harvey
The Host Factory
Resellers are our speciality
"Is there another word for synonym?"

I understand that Front doesn't *generate* valid code, but you can still author valid HTML within FrontPage. My question was can anything be done within FrontPage to solve issues like 2 token statements like the one I mentioned:

<meta name="Microsoft Border" content="t">

I need to use shared borders and valid code. Can the two coexist?

Crispy

We all accept that FP writes some stuff that is not compliant, and, as you so rightly say, we can always be cautious and edit to make it compliant to whatever standard we desire.

But along with that goes acceptance that if you want 100% compliance there are things in FP you cannot use, and shared borders, for the reason you give, is one. I do not believe that the borders will work without this tag so either you use shared borders and live with it, or you abandon shared borders altogether.

There are many alternatives to shared borders - such as SSI or FP includes - but borders are very convenient where sites are edited by many people.

I know that perfection is the goal to which we should all strive but I honestly think that if this were the only think standing between me and full compliance I would live with it for the convenience.

Incidently HomeSite, which I use a lot in tandem with FP, will validate your code to your applied standard as you type. Very handy. Perhaps FP 2002 will include a similar facility, And yes Gil, I am joking!

------------------
Katherine

InKK Design
LinKKs - Kilkenny's Online Magazine

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"Dogs have owners, cats have staff!"

Shared borders will not work without the mentioned tag, in fact it will not work with any modification of the tag, which I was hoping for. I had this wild dream that someone would know some obscure workaround for this dumb tag that would still allow me to use the oh-so-convenient shared borders.

And thank you for suggesting SSI, which I have also considered. I use this on a number of other things and I may have to resort to it in this case. I have to say that this would introduce a hassle factor.

Thanks!

Crispy

P.S. And if you would like to see my W3C non-compliant FrontPage site, here it is:

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us

Well done. As an interested observer to this thread, was glad to see cool heads prevail. I tried to email you from work, but it didn't like eircom.net for some reason. So here it is:

"I was quite put off by Crispy's rather harsh response.

Abbyvet, you handled the situation well, direct and to the point.

I honestly didn't think anyone would respond after that minor diatribe.

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that there are some of us who read this stuff and appreciate the way it's handled. I've seen BB's descend into vitriolic pits before and that usually signals their demise.

OutFront is way too valuable to people like me to see or let that happen.

Keep up your good work AND the humor that goes with it."

And hat's off to you Crispy for having the class to apologize.

Just one observer's opinion.

Minds are like parachutes...they only work when they're open.

I've been using the validator for a little over four years and have yet to have a site come through squeaky clean. Take any of your top 100 sites out there and run them through the validator. You probably won't find one that will pass the test.

I probably write some of the cleanest code out there using FP and there are just too many cross platform variables to deal with. There are tags that work in IE but don't work in NS. The margin tag is a prime example. The W3C reports the margin attributes as errors.

If you know html, which it sounds like you do, the validator is great for catching those blatant mistakes that we sometimes make. If you want to make a W3C compliant web site, then there will be a lot of neat little features that you need to take away. Its a give and take situation. Look at the layout of the W3C site and you'll see why it validates itself. Its very simple, no bells and whistles and the html is very strict.

I'd recommend getting away from the shared borders feature of FP. Not only does it produce invalid code, but it also is a stumbling block for search engine spiders. The FP include page feature is the best method to use for static information on the site. Yes, you will need to go through and strip out all of your shared borders, but once you've got it all set up, you'll be that much further ahead.

Good luck!

To make life easier, I would build one page and save it as a template. Your template will carry the same structure as your current site. Where the shared borders are you will now have FP includes.

Once you've built the template, now it is just a matter of cutting and pasting the information from the main site into your content area and resaving with the appropriate file name each time.

This may sound like the hard way to go, but you need to make sure that all of the <msnavigation> tags are gone! The only way I know how to do that is to start from scratch working with a clean template that does not have any references to shared borders.

Keep in mind that once you've made all the changes, the maintenance will be just as easy as if you were using shared borders. You'll have one, two or possibly three navigation elements that will reside in their own .htm files. When you make a change to any one of them, it updates across the entire site where the includes are present. Kind of works the same as shared borders but without all the code bloat!

[This message has been edited by pageoneresults (edited 06-04-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crispy:
No I'm not joking and I'm not looking for clever or witty replies. I am posting here for serious conversation regarding this issue.

I understand that Front doesn't *generate* valid code, but you can still author valid HTML within FrontPage. My question was can anything be done within FrontPage to solve issues like 2 token statements like the one I mentioned:

<meta name="Microsoft Border" content="t">

I need to use shared borders and valid code. Can the two coexist?

---

Sorry about the attempt at humor. Microsoft has thumbed its collective noses at the W3C since the begging and I was being serious while joking. IE: They (Microsoft) have never addressed this issue and I doubt they really care....

Again, sorry about the misunderstanding.

------------------
Gil Harvey
The Host Factory
Resellers are our speciality
"Is there another word for synonym?"

And please don't get me wrong, I'm not losing any sleep over becoming (strict) W3C compliant because I will not be giving up my tables any time soon for CSS positioning. With all of the browser incompatibilities out there, I simply don't have time to waste doing multi-browser testing. I would, however, like my pages to validate as HTML 4.1 transitional. This can be accomplished and I have already done it using FrontPage with my intranet site here at the District.

I am also the webmaster for the District's intranet which, by the way, is 90% FrontPage (the other 10% includes several frothing Zeldman worshippers who think I'm scum of the earch for using FrontPage). I wrote an article on my personal intranet site regarding FrontPage/W3C which may be of interest here. I'll post it here in my next message if it will fit.

Again, I apologize for my rough start in this forum, and I really do appreciate the suggestions.

Crispy

About This Site

Develop a W3C compliant web site in FrontPage, could it be done? Yes it could, but there were some significant issues to work out. First of all, if you have never heard of the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), and don't understand why I would want to built a site that validates as HTML 4.01 Transitional, you may want to go here and just start reading as the rest of this commentary probably won't make any sense to you if you don't.

If you have gone to the above link and done a serious amount of reading, you may be asking yourself why this site doesn't validate as HTML 4.01 Strict. Well, it's a long story.

First let me say that I am all for standards support and CSS (cascading style sheets). In order for this site to validate as HTML 4.01 Strict, there could be no presentational markup in the code. Purists will tell you that only structural markup should be found in your code, but I just can't live with that, at least right now. Look at my code and you will still find, yes . . . tables.

So why do I still insist on using tables for layout when some of the "experts" advocate cutting the apron strings and using CSS positioning only? Two words--browser incompatiblilities. Trying to lay out a web page that will look the same in all browsers using only CSS positioning is a nightmare. Current browsers just aren't up to anything but rudimentary page layouts using CSS positioning and disappointingly, some experts say that this situation will not improve even with full CSS2 support. See for yourself--find a web site that is constructed using CSS positioning only, and it will most likely be vertical in structure with very little use of the horizontal dimension. This is because the designer chose to deal with the horizontal positioning problem by simply avoiding it altogether. So in summary, CSS positioning in current browsers is flaky at best, so I won't be abandoning my tables any time soon.

It may have occurred to you that we all use the same browser here at the District, so why would I be concerned about browser inconsistencies if CSS positioning was used on this web site. Good question. I built this site just like I would build a site that would appear on the internet (where every conceivable browser exists), and I wanted it to conform to HTML 4.01 Transitional using FrontPage 2000. This was a learning exercise.

So okay, if this web site can conform to HTML 4.01 Transitional, why can't the District's web site (and I can assure you that it doesn't). Very simple . . . time. The construction of this little web site required a lot of hand coding. FrontPage 2000 uses numerous automated features that inserts proprietary code which will not validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional. The bad thing is, I am a large staff of one who relies heavily on these automated features to quickly and efficiently maintain and create large numbers of web pages on a weekly basis. At this rate, it will be a long time before the District's web site validates as HTML 4.01 Transitional.

But, as you can see, building a conforming web site with relatively clean code can be done in FrontPage. I invite you to scrutinize my code, and If you would like to see the style sheet behind this web site, here it is. Please keep in mind that this style sheet and the code that make up these pages may change as I tend to do a lot of experimenting.

This site also conforms to Section 508 of the Federal IT Accessibility Initiative--as I understand it, that is. It is also Bobby approved.

If you have any questions or would like further information regarding this site, please contact me.

And Bill - thanks for your kind words, I kinda knew Crispy was just having a grumpy moment. Though I am in two minds about whether people lucky enough to live in Florida should be allowed grumpy moments.

It is easy for new arrivals here to assume that it will be like the many many bulletin boards and forums where the main objective seems to be to trivialise peoples queries and act in an offhand (at best) or downright rude manner to those with whom you disagree. Outfront has never been like that and, worry not, it never will be!

quote:

---

I tried to email you from work, but it didn't like eircom.net for some reason.

---

Odd, but I have to agree with the opinion of your mailserver. I bought far too many shares in that cruddy company when it floated, shares now worth about half what I paid for them. And they have been dropping my connection about 3 times an hour all day. And now they are turning away my email. Grrrrrrr.

------------------
Katherine

InKK Design
LinKKs - Kilkenny's Online Magazine

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"Dogs have owners, cats have staff!"

[This message has been edited by abbeyvet (edited 06-04-2001).]

quote:

---

I'd recommend getting away from the shared borders feature of FP. Not only does it produce invalid code, but it also is a stumbling block for search engine spiders. The FP <B>include page</B> feature is the best method to use for static information on the site.

---

Includes are more adaptable than shared borders for designing the layout of a page, but both become part of the page the search engine is spidering. Neither causes problems with search engines.

www.delorie.com/web has a search engine simulator (along with some other cool tools) to show how some search engines will look at your site.

And a quote from www.cyfi.com (in case you want someone else's word besides just mine ):
Search Engines do not have a problem with shared borders. To a search engine it is all one page of HTML code and there is nothing to trip it up.

Linda

Frontpage Web Templates

(in reply to Crispy)

quote:

---

this string answered most of my questions
very helpful
has anything been changed since last july?
if not i will move forward striping out the shared borders.

skip
www.steedremodeling.biz
-----
raising teenagers is like nailing jello to a tree

---