Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Expression Web Help



Message

Reflect -> Why? (3/13/2007 13:48:48)

I am sure I will sound dense (Heck I do most every day so waht's new [;)])...

Why all the posts on Expressions doing FP tricks?

I thought Expressions was to "make the break away" so to say.

I am SURE I am missing something but help a brother out and let on...why? Why not just use FP if you want FP features (and save money buying something).

Thanks for your patience,

Brian



jaybee -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 13:59:17)

Well Brian I said exactly the same thing and got jumped on so get ready to duck.

Seems that our FP afficionados don't want to give up the old bots and because EW doesn't have them they're being re-engineered back in.

Backward step in my opinion but hey, I like to learn new stuff.

I'm just finishing off a site I've done entirely in EW. I figured if I was going to test it out I might as well do it properly so I picked a victim and set to work. The site is looking good, functioning well and not a bot or a macro in sight (or should that be in site?)

EW has some glitches, some downright nasties but compared to FP it's a dream. When the site is complete I'll let you have a look if you want.



Tailslide -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 13:59:57)

*cough* comfort blanket *cough*



mar0364 -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 14:03:09)

Your dead on JB. It is a step in the correct direction.



Mike54 -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 15:22:51)

quote:

*cough* comfort blanket *cough*

Exactly! I figure I already have FP and if I need to use it I will (don't use the bots anyway).
I got EW to learn something more ('cause I'm a glutton for punishment) and I figured it was time to actually get my head around CSS. I've spent the last two weeks tearing the templates down and trying to get them back together [&:]- I will figure it out. [:-]
If there is one thing I will miss in EW it's the "insert include page" but that can be gotten around easily enough.



Tailslide -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 16:30:58)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike54
If there is one thing I will miss in EW it's the "insert include page" but that can be gotten around easily enough.


That's the funny thing about WYSIWYGs versus Hand coding (and I don't want to get into a row... again!) but inserting includes for me has always been the following:

1. Copy and paste the bit I want to include into a blank page and save it.
2. Delete the original if it's still in the page
3. add the include call.

It takes about 40 seconds.

You'll hardly even notice it's gone honest!



Mike54 -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 16:36:45)

quote:

and I don't want to get into a row

No row with me, my hat has always been off to you hand coders.[;)] I may be an old dog but I can still pick up learn a few tricks.[:D]



Tailslide -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 17:12:30)

You never struck me as old. [:D]

Anyway learning new stuff is exciting isn't it? The day we stop learning we might as well just lie down and give up.




womble -> RE: Why? (3/13/2007 17:47:30)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailslide
That's the funny thing about WYSIWYGs versus Hand coding (and I don't want to get into a row... again!) but inserting includes for me has always been the following:

1. Copy and paste the bit I want to include into a blank page and save it.
2. Delete the original if it's still in the page
3. add the include call.

It takes about 40 seconds.

You'll hardly even notice it's gone honest!

...and there's even a handy little tutorial here on OF on how to include the different types of "includes" - here - copying and pasting one tiny snippet of code is all it takes. [;)]



Reflect -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 6:17:15)

quote:

Well Brian I said exactly the same thing and got jumped on so get ready to duck.


Curiosity is never a bad thing, so if people want to jump....so be it. I still have yet to get a valid (IMHO) reason for this. Comfotrt level is not valid. We have to learn to evolve/progress (I mean that nicely). Otherwise we would still be writting for Netscape 4 (shudder).

Hand coding has always been a fall back for me when FP is not doing what I want it to. Actually I have to thank FP for that, it got me into hand coding.

Again not trying to start a "row" [:)].

Take care,

Brian




caz -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 6:37:59)

That's the incidental benefit from using FP, it forces you to delve into code when you originally had no intention of doing something that appeared at first glance to be sooo hard. Well, it did when I wanted to use CSS anyway. [;)] So you could say that I became an accidental "hand coder" when I had to clean all the FP proprietary stuff away and learn to love code view.



jaybee -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 8:39:50)

quote:

I still have yet to get a valid (IMHO) reason for this.
I don't think you'll get one.



Thomas Brunt -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 9:22:15)

I'm not going to "jump" anyone. I don't recall ever doing that, but I will explain why there is a demand for the old FP stuff in EW.

I get people regularly coming to me who have upgraded to EW and gotten rid of FP. They have fairly large existing sites that are completely dependent upon the FP navigation component and themes.

The best answer is for them to overhaul their navigation. They don't have the time or money to take that project on, however.

They want to produce new projects with css and without the nav component and themes, but they want to maintain their existing projects as they are.

The logical answer to that would be to leave FP on the computer, and use that to manage the existing sites. That's fine as long as you still have FP on your computer or know where your disk is. Otherwise, it's helpful to use the FP components within EW.

Also, Sharepoint Designer is basically EW with the FP components still there. The main difference between the 2 products is that EW's menus don't give you access to that stuff. These tricks are basically a way to get EW to behave like Sharepoint designer for older FP-based sites.

t



Reflect -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 9:34:49)

quote:

I get people regularly coming to me who have upgraded to EW and gotten rid of FP. They have fairly large existing sites that are completely dependent upon the FP navigation component and themes.


They would still have the FP install CD so I do not see the issue keeping EW and FP on there. It makes sense. I do this myself (Plus other editors).

Guess I won't "get it"..sorry.

Anyway, it's a new day.

As always...take care,

Brian




Thomas Brunt -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 11:00:30)

quote:

They would still have the FP install CD


Not always.

t



jaybee -> RE: Why? (3/14/2007 11:27:56)

quote:

I'm not going to "jump" anyone.
Not you. The member who called me names for daring to express a different opinion.



Reflect -> RE: Why? (3/15/2007 6:39:32)

quote:

Not always.


Yup, I hear you. I won't say my normal verbage as an answer (It wouldn't be appropriate [;)]).

JB, you're just a heritic...face it [;)].

Take care,

Brian



jaybee -> RE: Why? (3/15/2007 6:50:12)

quote:

JB, you're just a heritic...face it :).
Oh is that what it is. Can I get ointment for it? [:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625