Crispy

I believe that you will find when using FP bots or FP wizards it inserts "invalid HTML" code also.

I found that with tables the code is "clean" BUT do not click on a cell of a table and drag it in "normal" view. I remember reading here that it sometimes messes the math of the width statement up.

All in all I have come to like FP and if you take a little time (such as with any program) and explore you will come to like the product but learn when "HTML view" and typing in the commands are best..

Brian

------------------
Work hard, play fair, stay sane

Crispy

Perhaps I missed the answer last time?
The main concern with invalid code is how each browser reacts to the code. If there is no reaction, then its often not worth the effort to accomodate standards.

I understand why you are asking why I am so concerned with writing valid code. And maybe I am even being overly fixated on it, but I find it to be a challenge to write code in FrontPage that validates per W3C specs.

This is more of a learning exercise for me. My current web site is laden with FrontPage proprietary code, and do you know how many complaints I hear from my users? None! My site shows up in all of their browsers perfectly--unless the are using v3.0 browsers and then lord only knows what they may see.

This is not a big deal, just me fiddling with code. I have no intention of giving up FrontPage for any reason or retrofitting my current site to conform to W3C standards. I just don't have the time. This is more of a sideline curiosity.

Thanks for the comment.

Crispy

Take a very close look at the code of any sites that do validate (the only one I could find is the W3C site itself). You'll notice that there are no bells and whistles, all styles are coming from a style sheet. There are no inline style tags, etc...

Its just not worth the time and effort to try and validate 100%. I've got my site very close to validating for the 4.01 transitional but my body margin attributes and a couple of other minor issues cause it to fail.

I've built pages that do validate, but they are very simplistic in design. You need to uncheck all the compatibility options in FP before doing this. That will eliminate any vendor specific attributes from interfering with the validation.

The problem with this is you are very limited in design elements. So, my opinion is not to worry about it. Go ahead and run some of the top sites on the web through the validator! Yahoo! has hundreds of errors as do many of the others.

The bottom line... You just cannot produce an appealing design when trying to validate for the W3C standards.

quote:

---

To validate documents with non-standard extensions, one can write a custom document type definition (DTD) that defines the elements. Extending an existing DTD to handle non-standard extensions can be relatively easy.

---

One way around the standard validation is to write the custom DTD as mentioned above. You can find more information on this here...

http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/customdtd.html

If you manage to validate, please do share your success, I'm interested too!

A good checker is here :

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ablavier/TidyGUI/

"Show me a few sites that actually pass the W3C's test for validation. I've run numerous sites through that validator (possibly 1,000's) and not one has validated even using the 4.01 transitional."

Oh there are hundreds of sites that validate not only 4.01 transitional but strict as well and you can find a lot of them by starting your search here:

http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/

And what is the problem with the concept found at the above site? If you read it you will find that they are advocating that you simply write for new browsers and tell anyone who is using a version 4.0 browser, or a browser that doesn't support CSS to take a flying leap. I have a major problem with that. I suggest that you go to the above site and find out what is going on with the rabid web design elitists.

Personally, I have no intention getting excited about this "upgrade your browser or else" campaign until the version 4.0 browser users have shrunk to 1%-3%, not the current 20%-25% which is where they are hovering right now.

Do you think for one moment that I am going to alienate any of my current site visitors by telling them that they must upgrade their browser to see my site as it was designed? Not a chance.

For the record though, it is not difficult to create a valid HTML 4.01 page, but yes the design suffers because of the limitations of today's browsers. Use of the horizontal dimension is just too flaky. And if you are interested in validating your pages, go straight to the horses mouth:

http://validator.w3.org/

Thanks!

Crispy

quote:

---

Oh there are hundreds of sites that validate not only 4.01 transitional but strict as well and you can find a lot of them by starting your search here.

---

I could not find a list of sites at the above link where you say they validated. The link that you provided does validate but they are using a custom DTD.

You say hundreds of sites but there are hundreds of millions of sites and that makes it a very miniscule percentage. You do bring up a good point in that they are pretty much ignoring a good portion of our audience using 4.0 browsers.

Most of us, including myself, don't have the time, understanding or inclination to figure out how to write a custom DTD or even attempt to understand the W3C's explanation of the errors that are present when validating a site. If it works in multiple browsers, across multiple platforms, then great!

I can assure you that most of the sites that have validated were created using Notepad or some other form of text editor with hand written code, not WYSIWYG generated code like that from FP.

One of these days I'll spend the 20 or so hours that will probably be required to really nail it down and produce a W3C compliant site without writing the custom DTD. Right now I am very close!

[This message has been edited by pageoneresults (edited 06-08-2001).]

I'm not close to this stuff, not even particularly technically savvy. Nor do I ever intend to get close to it.

I'm a FP user (emphasis on the U S E R )and as long as the product produces something that is relatively stable, and visually nice, that's the end of my interest.

In other words, if it works, that's good enough for me. As for browsers, I could really care less which browser I'm using at the time as long as it gets me the info. Sure it would be nice to see some graphic that can't be displayed on some browsers, or perhaps the tables don't line up. So what?

I leave all that conformity stuff up to you technilogical wizards. Personally, I quit twiddling bits or pixels a long time ago in favor of just getting the job done as quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible.

Sound jaded? Perhaps...just a different generation showing. One who went through all this standardization stuff with another computer technology years ago. Guess what? There is STILL no standard. That's because by the time everyone got savvy enough to deal with it, newer, better technology was on the scene.

My advice on this? And remember, I've been in this BUSINESS for a lot of years, don't get bogged down in standards. They'll change before you can even dream them up.

Bring on the flames....you wouldn't believe how badly I've been burned in my career.

quote:

---

Guess what? There is STILL no standard. That's because by the time everyone got savvy enough to deal with it, newer, better technology was on the scene.

---

Technology is changing as I write this reply! FP is a great tool when used correctly. Unfortunately Bill Gates thinks that we live in a Microsoft world and FP is the answer to building websites. Well, it can be if you know basic html and what features not to use in FP. If everyone were using IE 5.5 or 6, then our lives would be so much easier!

The problem is, that won't be happening anytime soon. So, we need only worry about whether or not the site looks nice, presents the information to the user in a friendly way and functions the way it was intended, across multiple platforms (the standard).

Standards are organic. If you are not technologically inclined, you will not understand most of them. That is the reason we have WYSIWYG editors, so the average person can build a web presence and maintain it.

Building a W3C compliant web site is a task. Why? Because you need to learn the core basics of the web and how it works. W3C validated sites are simplistic in design, but in a very technical way. View the source code of any site you find that has the W3C validation (I couldn't find any immediately other than those listed in this thread). Take a very close look and you'll see no code bloat, no vendor specific attributes and no frills!

I'd still like to see a list of W3C validated sites just to see if they have the custom DTD or if they have the basic strict or transitional tag.

[This message has been edited by pageoneresults (edited 06-08-2001).]

I can give you a fairly simplistic example of my viewpoint. I got caught up in all the intracacies of web development in my rush to get my page out there. I learned a buttload of stuff from this forum, and got the job done. Badaboom badabing. Three weeks, tops. I'm happy, my audience is happy, and although I didn't set OutFront on fire, the reviews were good.

The other day, I checked out another site, shoddyfilms.com. Sure, it's got its problems and some technological glitches, but to me...they got their message across instantly. And they're thumb-your-nose at the establishment attitude got my attention as well. Boy, I'll sure bet the first thing on THEIR mind is compliance, or standards......Riiiiight. Check out their motto...hits the nail squarely on the head.

Have a good weekend to all that read this.

http://www.alistapart.com/discuss/coders/

And for record, I got over hand coding pages long ago, and when you (alone) have manage a huge web site, FrontPage is the only way to go valid code or not.

My interest in W3C, like I said, is limited to my own educational purposes. I won't be giving up FrontPage to return to hand coding pages. If you have actually read W3C, you will see that there is indeed a lot there to learn, and I am all for learning. But to retrofit my entire site to attain the holy grail of W3C compliance? Not a chance, baby.

And one more thing, if you go to http://www.alistpart.com you will note that their mantra is that you must conform to "W3C standards." They seem to have misplaced the fact that W3C is a SPECIFICATION, not a STANDARD! This is simply the design "elitists" creating a niche for themselves.

So I ask you, should you bust your butt and strive to make your site conform to W3C specifications? Sure, but only if you want to--no other reason. Will it be a valuable skill later in your career? Maybe.

But here is my prediction, and mark it in your calendar that Crispy said so. In the 18 months to 2 years that it takes for the browser market to shake out all of the bugs, incompatibilities and inconsistencies, I predict that someone (maybe even Micosoft) will develop a WYSIWYG product that will do CSS positioning for you *while* writing valid HTML at the same time.

Have a great weekend!

Crispy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crispy:
But here is my prediction, and mark it in your calendar that Crispy said so. In the 18 months to 2 years that it takes for the browser market to shake out all of the bugs, incompatibilities and inconsistencies, I predict that someone (maybe even Micosoft) will develop a WYSIWYG product that will do CSS positioning for you *while* writing valid HTML at the same time.

---

Personally, I'd be glad if I'm still here in 18 months, or html for that matter as well. I'm thinking this is another passing ship, just like Assembler, Cobol, RPG and all those other "languages". They all have their own sunsets.

On another point, Crispy, I've followed your threads from the beginning. You've got character and intelligence, and the grit to speak your mind. I like that.

But more importantly, I'm glad to see you've stuck it out. And clearly, you've a new found sense of respect for the people here at Outfront. This is a very knowledgeable bunch....lots of experience, and lots of scar tissue that comes from practical use of technology.

Have a great one... stay tuned.

[This message has been edited by Bill Nicol (edited 06-08-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crispy:
But here is my prediction, and mark it in your calendar that Crispy said so. In the 18 months to 2 years that it takes for the browser market to shake out all of the bugs, incompatibilities and inconsistencies, I predict that someone (maybe even Micosoft) will develop a WYSIWYG product that will do CSS positioning for you *while* writing valid HTML at the same time.

---

Great thread!! I've been content to read and not post up 'til now.

Crispy, you have a firm grasp of the whole W3C "standards" problem and appear to have sorted it out in the best possible way.

But, I don't think there will be many "Professional" sites using much HTML in 2 years, well maybe XHTML. Most of the developement houses are moving toward XML and XCSS.

Again, great thread. Looking forward to more.

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

quote:

---

Most of the developement houses are moving toward XML and XCSS.

---

They are probably moving towards backend xml and not frontend. From an SEO (Search Engine Optimization) standpoint, xml is not an option at the current time. We've already found through testing that the spider does not read the ending meta tags in the xml version. For those not familiar with xml basics, all tags are closed properly. In xml your metas end up with a closing tag (/> ) which the spider did not see.

This is another case of moving forward with technology and shifting focus. My understanding is that FP2002 incorporates an xml compatibility feature. I'm looking forward to the final release version (the current beta has too many bugs).

I'd estimate about 9-12 months before we see xml taking a strong foothold in becoming a standard. As long as the WYSIWYG editors stay in tune with the shifting environment, most of us should be okay.

[This message has been edited by pageoneresults (edited 06-08-2001).]

I've come back to it on every visit. May I start by saying that all those who have posted deserve praise for clarity of thought and moderation of language. Like Gil I've refrained from adding to it 'til now.

One point - Crispy's prediction about standards is worth repeating again because he is absolutely spot on:

"But here is my prediction, and mark it in your calendar that Crispy said so. In the 18 months to 2 years that it takes for the browser market to shake out all of the bugs, incompatibilities and inconsistencies, I predict that someone (maybe even Micosoft) will develop a WYSIWYG product that will do CSS positioning for you *while* writing valid HTML at the same time."

Microsoft, Netscape (AOL), and Opera have all publicly stated that their next browsers will move much closer to full compliance. IE 6 beta already is much closer although it's solved one problem about positioning at the expense of introducing another.

The beta version of ie6 in effect looks both forwards and back - it handles non compliant coding and compliant coding. Microsoft have repeatedly said that versions thereafter are going for fully compliant rendering.

To end on a light hearted note:

Like Bill I've been around in this business for a while. I'm 41 next month which means I'll have been working with computers for 22 years , during that time I've had ample cause to ruefully reflect on the truth of this joke.

"Of course we computer people love standards - that's why we have so many of them."

aaargggh.....

------------------
Hope this helps :-)
Gorilla
aka Mark Saunders
http://www.computerdriving.com

marksaunders@techie.com

http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/pr.html

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with this forced browser upgrade campaign, I would like your opinion whether you agree with me or not. If you are not familiar with this browser upgrade campaign, you owe it to yourself as a web designer to know what these people are advocating.

If choose to read the above page and agree with the frothing Zeldman fanatics that it is a good idea to simply stop designing for the lowest common browser denominator and start designing only for the highest one, I will be happy to explain to you why you are so misguided. <wink>

Have a great work day!

Crispy

However, I can't help but notice the inconsistency of supporting version 3 browsers while MS has dropped support for Windows 3.1. I guess the question is "Who makes the decision, 'It's old enough to drop support'?" Also, how can a developer say he/she will supprt version4 of IE & NN, yet not support the current version of Lynx?

Who draws the line? Where?

OK, lets hear it you all!

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

[This message has been edited by Gil (edited 06-11-2001).]

oooh I *enjoyed* that .....

As far as I'm concerned the web is about freedom. That includes the freedom to use an out of date browser.

(I nearly said cr*ppy browser there but having commented earlier on about how everyone was using restrained language. I thought I should at least *try* to refrain from lowering the tone.)

Now let's see what browsers do I use:

Internet explorer. (Various versions)
Netscape (ditto)

Opera (5.12)( both with and without java support) Opera happens to be my favourite.

konqueror (Got to be the best linux ftp around as well as being a good general browser.)

Amaya (From w3c themselves. I only use it when I can be bothered. It's come close to being junked on several occasions when I run my disk usage stats.)

Lynx (love it to bits but only use it on certain text only sites.)

Although I agree that it would be a good thing if people used better browsers this sort of arrogance gets right up my nose.

Sigh ..... if anyone from that body reads this you can start flaming me now. The email address to which your flames can be directed is:

mpsaunders@hotmail.com

I'll try to get back to "regularperson-ese".

Guess what, if you put a site out there that I can't read with my browser, then you lose because I'll move on to another site to find out what I want to know. And if you're in some web business, you've lost a customer.

Forcing us "users" to become current is total folly.

I'm as hip on getting current as the next guy, but sometimes (no, it would be more accurate to say most of the time) I regret having upgraded because I always have a learning curve which crimps my productivity.

I'm not saying that I don't want to learn, but if you haven't fathomed what I've said earlier in this FANTASTIC thread, it's a matter of how much is enough? New browsers, new graphics software, new communications technologies, and more....

I cannot possibly stay abreast with all the new stuff....at best, I can get just a little exposure to it.

So forcing me into new technologies is not going to be any answer whatsoever. I'll get there when I feel like it.

Standards, my friends, are the same as laws. They are usually outdated before they're finalized. And there is certainly no shortage of crusaders out there ready to create even more.

Phew...sorry, I really started to get on a soapbox....but these days, I'm really reaching some limits, and beginning to understand why William Wallace was so keen on freedom.

Cheers

My understanding is also that html is an adaptation of sgml which has been around for something like 40 years -- could be 50?

The basic principles behind html have been around just about as long as computing, and this is the first prediction I've heard that they're on the way out.

All Word Processors still use a markup langauge adapted from sgml. 15 years ago, word processors used to allow you to work with the source code by hand. The source code didn't go away. The word processors just closed the door so you can't see it anymore.

Lots of web applications are going to have needs that extend beyond what html can do. Hence the need for xml. Lots of web sites will have no need at all for anything beyond what html 2.0 could do.

Yes, both HTML and XML are subsets of SGML and there is no chance of SGML going any where. HTML has brought the WWW to a level far beyond any ones' widest dreams and I'm sure will remain a entry level web deveopement tool for a long time to come. But I do feel XML will replace HTML as the "professional/commercial" tool for web sites of the future.

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

I have suffered the wrath of these elitist snobs on many occasions at design conferences and seminars. As soon as I say that I use FrontPage to develop my web sites, I immediately get that "oh you're a FrontPage user" sneer. Most of you here probably know what I'm talking about.

So let them sniff for "acceptible" browsers all they want. I can tell you this however, the day I disenfranchise any of my site visitors who use OmniWeb (approx. 7% of my users, offers no support for the CSS box model at all), or iCab (approx. 4-5% of my users, still has serious box model bugs), or IE5/Windows (approx. everyone) still has significant box model bugs, it will be a cold day in heck. And what about the visitors who use Lynx? Am I going to tell them that text browsers aren't welcome? Nah!

So while these folks are designing their sites with text size defined in pixels (these are the same people who drone on endlessly about accessibility yet still absolutely size their fonts), and serve up a message to you if are using one of those incovenient "incompatible" older browsers that you *must* upgrade your browser to see their wonderful web site the way it was designed, I'll still be developing my site in FrontPage where 99% of everyone can see it the way I designed it.

Oh yes, those design purist of whom I speak? You know they really don't think FrontPage users are capable of hand coding a web page, don't you? Why isn't that why we use FrontPage? Because we can't code?

Crispy

I know one thing for sure. I'm glad you're on our side..... a huge smilie would go here if I wasn't at the office where such things are frowned upon. Heaven help us all and keep us free from the bureaucrats and rulemakers.

/*Edited to reflect Gil's point below;

Gil - sincere thanks for spotting some very poor phrasing on my part */

Please allow me to try to describe what XML is for with reference to HTML. I will start by making two statements:

1. HTML as it now is is used to instruct a browser how to render something on a page to which a tag has been applied.

2.XML is about describing information. It is a data description language.

XML does not DO anything per se 'nor was it designed to. Its sole purpose in life, (so to speak) is to

1. structure
2. store
3. send

information.

That's all - nothing else. Imagine that I wish to send a message to crispy. The message stored in xml might look something like this:

<notelet>
<to>crispy</to>
<from>gorilla</from>
<exclamation>Hey great thread !</exclamation>
<body>Man oh man you've really got a ball rolling :-) </body>
</notelet>

Now what does the note have? Well it has these:

1. a header
2. a message body
3. sender info
4. recipient info

*But* the document isn't doing anything. It is merely information wrapped in XML tags.

Somebody must write software that will:

1. send it
2. receive it
3. display it

But that is easily done by a moderately talented programmer. You'll notice that I didn't use HTNL tags in the example above. Why not? It is because there is no such thing as a predefined XML tag - I invented my own I could do it because XML is extensible.

Hej?

Well in HTML the tags used and therefore the structure of HTM documents *are* predefined. If you author HTML documents you can *only* use tags defined in the HTML standard.

Now from this I think that you will see that XML is complementary to HTML not a replacement to it.

My prediction if I may stick my head out for walloping is that if XML takes off that that it will be used as a DDL (data description language) while HTML will continue to be used to while HTML will be used to format (and display) the *same* data.

Think of XML as a truly independent tool for describing and transmitting information and you have grasped it.

PS: I am sorry that this posting is so long.

PPS: Standards are important - but they are a tool a means to an end.

/* orignial and badly phrased

[1. HTML was designed to display data its focus is on on how data looks. Therefore HTML is dealing with displaying information.]

*/

------------------
Hope this helps :-)
Gorilla
aka Mark Saunders
http://www.computerdriving.com

marksaunders@techie.com

[This message has been edited by gorilla (edited 06-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by gorilla (edited 06-12-2001).]

I'm still using tables because of the current browsers flaky handling of the horizontal dimension, but I use CSS for everything else.

What is everyone else doing, I wonder...

Crispy

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorilla:

---

quote:

---

1. HTML was designed to display data its focus is on on how data looks. Therefore HTML is dealing with displaying information

---

HTML was never designed to control any formatting of a document - the Hypertext Markup Language was developed from SGML to "Hyperlink" words or phrases to other words. phrases or documents. The Madison Avenue crowd found the WWW in the mid 90's and blessed us all with the concept that information "needed" to be formatted and "designed". Tables were developed to present tabular information in a "table" (what a concept, huh?), but the "designers" found they could prevert the table tags to control "layout" & positioning - Thus HTML lost it's original intent (to a degree) and has been used to "layout"/format/design documents ever since. A few years ago CSS was developed to add the "Design"/"Layout"/"Formatting" that the Designers wanted, but -alas- since MS & NN once again refused to cooperate with the W3C or each other, CSS has not lived up to its' promise.

For a concise look at what XML is http://www.w3.org/XML/1999/XML-in-10-points

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

A little late on the reply to this from Gil, been swamped. I let my sites log files decide. Right now I still get 1% or less of V. 3.0 browsers, I write off designing for them. I however get 20% of NN 4 and IE 4, so I use that as "my lowest common denominator" that I write to.

I feel that if I took the "write/design for the highest version" I would loose tooooo much business. Sure it would be great to write for that platform/browser level but what about all those people who bought PCs/MACs two years ago and are on dial-up, "You want me to download a 20MB file so I can view your bells and whistles, yeah right."

Brian

------------------
Work hard, play fair, stay sane

[This message has been edited by GWJ (edited 06-12-2001).]