To include or not or what? (Full Version)

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



Message

vashonmm -> To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 0:08:47)

I've got a site that's grown to over 50 pages and gets the dwt file updated weekly. I was thinking an include would be the answer but I can't tell from searching if they still really exist, if they still require FPSE and if the former are both true then what's available that's a better choice since FPSE's are doomed. The articles I find about includes all seem to be pretty old so I'm thinking they're not the answer. To top it off, Expression seems to lose the connection to the dwt all the time so not only do i have to update and upload all the pages, i also have to first reattach the dang dwt file. all's i wants is a lil ole side bar with weekly hot topics...

Can someone shed a little light on this please? It feels like I'm about to get kicked in the asp.

Thanks so much.

Matthew



Tailslide -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 3:22:56)

There are lots of different solutions. You could use PHP includes, Server Side Includes or in fact (I could be wrong about this as I don't use FP but I seem to remember that FP includes don't need FPSEs).

Personally I'd go for either SSIs or PHP includes. Just check whether your host is set up to use includes of any sort and you're away!



jaybee -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 5:41:46)

All my sites use includes. I tend to use PHP to do it but there are other ways as Tailslide says.

See here



caz -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 6:09:52)

The short answer is that FP Includes don't need the FPSE to work.



vashonmm -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 12:00:34)

Thanks for the replies folks. I gathered that the Expression had some problems with PHP, so I guess that's been sorted out? Otherwise, it seemed like the front runner for the next thing to start learning.

I was kiinda getting the impression MS was trying to nudge people towards SharePoint and I wasn't so sure learning PHP was going to be worthwhile for us as I'm kinda a MS toadie, we mostly do business networking. But we keep getting little websites and they keep getting more complicated so I have to have solutions. Just a bit leery after they pulled FP.

Anyone like working on a Windows web server better than a *nix box? I assume something about it has to be easier, hopefully the getting started part. After spending a week trying to find a good way to grant SFTP access to clients without letting them wander around the whole FreeBSD server, I gave up. I'm guessing that type of nuts and bolts level task on a Windows server isn't any easier. Would that be fair to say?

Thanks again for helping out. Figuring out what path to take seems to be the hardest part of this biz.

Matthew



swoosh -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 12:13:07)

What about using EW's Master Pages?



jaybee -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/12/2008 12:42:23)

Errr no, EW in its current form does not like PHP. Big time. Should have explained that a lot of us on here don't use FP or EW for web work, we go straight for the code.

If you want to use PHP includes by all means put them in the html page with EW but the includes themselves need to be done in something other than EW.

Or you could download the beta of EW2 which apparently does handle PHP.



vashonmm -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/14/2008 0:01:14)

Swoosh, do you use them? If so, would you recommend that route for a small time site developer? Part of my question is really about whether I should jump on the MS asp bandwagon. My understanding is, if I want to use master pages, i have to put the site on a windows server and i've never done that before, i really don't have the faintest idea what sort of benefits or troubles that has.

Jaybee, dang, just when i thought it was safe to go back in the water.

Caz, are you saying i can just poke an include in there like I used to? I see my EW at home has it on the Insert menu but not the EW at the office. I seem to remember something about turning old FP functions on in EW, maybe I did that... can't find that right now but i'm sure i can dig it up again.

guess i'll have to pick up a cheap windows based account and see what it's like. i have a site coming up that'll have maybe 100 items on it and could probably use a database. I'm thinking since I'm going to stick with EW maybe I should just go neck deep with MS methods. there just seems to be such a strong support community for non-MS methods. Php and MySQL seem like they drive everything.

sigh...

thanks again.

matthew



dpf -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/14/2008 19:02:04)

I vote for what.



rdouglass -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/15/2008 11:45:07)

quote:

there just seems to be such a strong support community for non-MS methods. Php and MySQL seem like they drive everything.


No not nessecarily. Strong community, yes. They are the most vocal and make the most noise. There is still an incredible amount of people that use and numbers of tools for Windows platforms. Take a look at the graph near the bottom of the page on this link:

http://news.netcraft.com/

According to them, MS had 35% of the server marketshare in Feb 08. Not some little niche market by any means and if you notice, MS has been gaining solidly and measureably in the past 3 years since the .NET products have been mainstreamed.

People say whatever they believe and the anti-MS camp is sometimes the loudest because it's never 'en vogue' to say MS does a good job. However, the evidence is absolutely in 'the numbers'. Do a little solid research on your own and really look to see who is using what.

IMO do what works best for you and not for other people. I am fully aware that the PHP and mySQL tools are free and are a mature technology and may very well be the correct choice for you but they aren't for me. I personally get a *lot* more work done using MS technologies and that's my focus; to get work done.

If you want to use EW (or any other MS development products for that matter), my suggestion is to use technologies are best supported by that platform and not try to push a square peg into a round hole.

Oh yeah, SSI all the way.

</$.02>



vashonmm -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/15/2008 13:19:39)

Well, for what it's worth... that's what I wanted to hear. I'm a sucker for getting things done. Standards, IMO, are what works for the most people, not what's on a "Request For Comments". That said, IE8 will make things interesting, again.

Now if I can just find some docs on how to use a Windows server. I use Verio and they sell the Windows products but have absolutely no docs on it. I'm guessing they figure MS provides enough docs but it's like when you got your first computer and stared at tha A:\> thinking, now what...

Thanks again very much folks.

Matthew



rdouglass -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/15/2008 13:29:18)

quote:

Now if I can just find some docs on how to use a Windows server.


That is such a general question. [;)]

I've always learned best by determining what it is I want to do, find something that does it already, and disect it and find out how they did it. Don't steal it, but find out how they did it.

Google can be an incredible resource if you know the right questions to ask. [:)]

PS: If you're looking at an A:\ prompt, you have more prob's than trying to figure out what server platform to use....[:D] [:D]



vashonmm -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/15/2008 20:16:43)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass

quote:

Now if I can just find some docs on how to use a Windows server.


That is such a general question. [;)]


Why yes, rdoug, it is, since it's the first time I've had one and with no docs from the provider, I can't tell how to log in to it or if I'm even supposed to, much less how to put even a one page, "Hello world" site on it. Still looking for the barest, getting started, for dummies, newbies click here docs. I'm beginning to think there's no docs because it's just a Windows server, prolly has IIS on it, the only difference between it and the one in-house is the IP address and all the docs I'll ever need are going to be at MS. Guess I'll snuggle in at asp.net for a few days...

And no, I'm not looking at an A:\> prompt, I upgraded to a 30MB RLL drive. ;-)



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/17/2008 10:05:52)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass

I personally get a *lot* more work done using MS technologies and that's my focus; to get work done.


I was sure glad to read that comment, rdouglass.

I'm struggling with learning how to use Expression Web Dynamic Web Templates and "includes", and decide which to use where, and came here to see if I could find some answers.

I know the basics of how to use both, and can make them work SOME of the time, but not reliably.

I can't even figure out how to make "Stylesheets" work reliabily. I will think I have something working and have the stylesheet attached to all pages, then open a page that I had not worked on before (since attaching the stylesheet to all pages) and the styles are not working right.

I was pleased to find this thread, but after reading it, my head is whirling, wondering if I should learn neither, but learn something else entirely.

As has been mentioned Expression Web Help is not much help.

Do you have words of wisdom to offer... or can you direct me to a good tutorial on the subjects?

Thanks,

CJ








vashonmm -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/17/2008 14:26:04)

Charlie,

I also have problems with DWT files staying attached, I haven't figured out why except that it seems to help if I make sure I have all other files saved and closed before doing anything to the dwt. I still have to go to site, reports, shared content, dwt's then select all, then format, dwt, attach dwt to get them all connected again and they still lose it later. If anyone has a cause or solution for that, it'd be wonderful. That's part of the reason I want to look into the Windows hosting, asp and master pages, i'm thinking perhaps MS does it their way better than the adopted Dream Weaver way (that's my limited understanding of it anyway).

BTW, rdouglass, I did finally find the control panel for my Windows host account and those stupid basics I was whining about are now obvious. Thanks again.

Matthew




TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/18/2008 12:16:30)

You are a lot further along than I am, Mathew.

I'm still in the initial "test" mode, working with just one page. Styles that I set in the DWT won't hold in pages I attach it to, so I must be doing something wrong.

btw, I did read about a Site Setting that must be enabled for a DWT to work across many pages: That is:

"Manage the Web site using hidden metadata files."

You probably already know about that, but I didn't have anything else to offer, so thought I'd mention it, just in case, [:)]




vashonmm -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/18/2008 12:43:06)

Are you using external stylesheets?

Here's some sites I found helpful to keep in my favorites when I was getting started:

http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp
http://www.expression-web-designer-help.com/
http://www.sitepoint.com/subcat/css

I ran through this tut for my very first attempt:
http://www.subcide.com/tutorials/csslayout/index.aspx

This is a fun site when you're feeling creative:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/index

And this one is inspiring when you're bogged down:
http://csszengarden.com/

Other than that, keep finding good places like outfront where others don't mind helping out.

Other than that, a thing I found it hard to remember only going back to web work every couple weeks was:
# - is for things that there's only going to be one of on a page (header, menu, side bar, footer, etc)
. - is for things there's going to be many of (articles, items, etc)
Prolly no one else is that dumb but it took me a couple weeks to figure out why my #articles only looked right for the first one on a page. I don't know if a validator would have found that but EW didn't holler at me. Can't rely too much on these tools to do your work for you. ;-)

Hope that helps some. Good luck!

Matthew



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/18/2008 22:16:19)

Thanks, Matthew,

I've copied that list and will look them up tomorrow.

Yes, I know about the different kinds of styles and stylesheets, but I still may be doing something wrong there.

I will look into it more closely.

I am about to give up in includes.

I thought I had figured out something... that includes would work with jpg files...

What I am needed is a new "Banner" for each page of my site. Somehow I messed up my page header when I converted from FrontPage, so that is what I am trying to fix.

I tried creating an htm file with formatted text for my Banner... and 'included" it as an includes.

Wouldn't work... it would "include" text but it would be all messed up.

When I came up with some kind of clue that made me think that jpg files would work, I created a header jpg with my site name on it... and I went through all my pages and it looked like it was working perfectly.

But... on after publishing, all I had was the word "banner" (the alternative text) at the top of each page.

So I went back and put my site name "Camping and RVing" as alternative text...

And that's what I've got at the top of each page... "includes" brought in the file ok, but lost the jpg and prints the alternative text.

Surprisingly enough, the text is formatted!!

So I'm giving up... at least for a while.

Sorry if this is an unreadable message, but I have to send as quickly as possible, as my access is very bad... I am in the area of Texas that is having a major rain storm... and it keeps knocking out my connection.

CJ




quote:

ORIGINAL: vashonmm

Are you using external stylesheets?

Here's some sites I found helpful to keep in my favorites when I was getting started:

http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp
http://www.expression-web-designer-help.com/
http://www.sitepoint.com/subcat/css

I ran through this tut for my very first attempt:
http://www.subcide.com/tutorials/csslayout/index.aspx

This is a fun site when you're feeling creative:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/index

And this one is inspiring when you're bogged down:
http://csszengarden.com/

Other than that, keep finding good places like outfront where others don't mind helping out.

Other than that, a thing I found it hard to remember only going back to web work every couple weeks was:
# - is for things that there's only going to be one of on a page (header, menu, side bar, footer, etc)
. - is for things there's going to be many of (articles, items, etc)
Prolly no one else is that dumb but it took me a couple weeks to figure out why my #articles only looked right for the first one on a page. I don't know if a validator would have found that but EW didn't holler at me. Can't rely too much on these tools to do your work for you. ;-)

Hope that helps some. Good luck!

Matthew




womble -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 5:59:51)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

I thought I had figured out something... that includes would work with jpg files...

What I am needed is a new "Banner" for each page of my site. Somehow I messed up my page header when I converted from FrontPage, so that is what I am trying to fix.

I tried creating an htm file with formatted text for my Banner... and 'included" it as an includes.

Wouldn't work... it would "include" text but it would be all messed up.

When I came up with some kind of clue that made me think that jpg files would work, I created a header jpg with my site name on it... and I went through all my pages and it looked like it was working perfectly.

But... on after publishing, all I had was the word "banner" (the alternative text) at the top of each page.

So I went back and put my site name "Camping and RVing" as alternative text...

And that's what I've got at the top of each page... "includes" brought in the file ok, but lost the jpg and prints the alternative text.



If it's showing the alt text rather than the image, that suggests the file path to the image is wrong (i.e. it can't find the image file in the directory you've specified, so it displays the alt text instead, unless of course you've accidentally forgotten to upload the file). That doesn't mean your include isn't working, just that you need to fiddle around with path to the image a little to get it right. That's not unusual when you first start using inludes; it took me ages to figure out that the file path had to be relative to the page the include was in and not to the includes directory when I first started using PHP includes.



jaybee -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 7:38:46)

quote:

Standards, IMO, are what works for the most people


Errrrr Standards and MS in the same sentence! [sm=rofl6.gif] Had it not been for thousands of standards based web devs screaming blue murder at the MS plans for IE8, they'd be gaily shepherding everyone down the non-standards route by default.

quote:

I don't know if a validator would have found that but EW didn't holler at me.


Yes it would have. Rule of thumb, when you've finished your page, run it through the validator and fix any errors. It will save you hours of faffing around trying to find where the fault is.



jaybee -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 8:02:40)

quote:

the anti-MS camp is sometimes the loudest because it's never 'en vogue' to say MS does a good job


No, that's not the reason. You'd put me down as an anti and yes, in a lot of cases I am anti mainly because MS try to tell everyone that it has to be done their way, and if you don't do it their way then you're wrong and have to be forced to. They do this either by giving you no option to run alternatives or by some sneaky bit of software tweaking to make sure it won't work.

It's only when the web community get together en-masse and shout loudly that they back down.

IE8 is a case in point. Non-standards mode was the default, if you develop to standards then you had to tell it that you do by inserting code into all your pages. Thousands and thousands of blogs, forum posts and ultimatums from developers finally forced them to back down and even then, Chris Wilson had the cheek to blame the IE problems on developers.

Case in point 2. MS sued by the EU. Massive fines for anti-competitive behaviour.

Case in point 3. Expression Web - they've admitted they purposely nobbled PHP. Again, it wasn't until the web community started telling everyone not to use it that MS have allowed it in EW2, apparently, I haven't tested it to see whether it does.

Now MS have done a heck of a lot. Without them it's likely the PC market wouldn't be where it is today. They have pushed a lot of boundaries and produced some very good things but when those things are out of date, or the web moves off down a different line, MS try to force it to stay where it is until they're ready to come up with something new.

They always have to be forced. IE was a disaster, buggy, insecure. Along came Firefox. MS got a nasty shock and started issuing regular software updates. Opera threaten court action, MS fix their stuff. The EU sue, win, MS try to wriggle out of it, eventually agree to behave, ignore it, fight it for 9 years and finally get whacked with a £342 million fine. Even when they do give in, it's always somebody else's fault.

My biggest gripe about MS, and I think the ethos is finally starting to change, that they need to listen to what people want rather than tell them what they're going to get.



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 10:13:56)


quote:

ORIGINAL: womble

If it's showing the alt text rather than the image, that suggests the file path to the image is wrong (i.e. it can't find the image file in the directory you've specified, so it displays the alt text instead, unless of course you've accidentally forgotten to upload the file). That doesn't mean your include isn't working, just that you need to fiddle around with path to the image a little to get it right. That's not unusual when you first start using inludes; it took me ages to figure out that the file path had to be relative to the page the include was in and not to the includes directory when I first started using PHP includes.


Womble, you are exactly right!

I had used "Insert Picture from File" to insert the jpg, and it put in the entire path, starting with the C:\ prompt.

(I don't know why it did that... it's something I need to find out.)

When I went back and typed the correct path, it works!

Thanks for the clue!

Do you have any clues about how to include a formatted text file?

I was able to include the file ok, but the formatting wouldn't hold.

Is it because you have to have the correct style in both documents?

If so, maybe it's because I haven't figured out something basic about using style sheets.

Thanks much!

CJ





jaybee -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 10:55:23)

Formatted text file? How did you format it? Please don't say Word.

The norm for stuff online is:

If it's a plainish page you want people to be able to look at or print from screen then set it up as HTML.

If it's a Word or PDF document they need to download and print then just link to it.

Using Word, Powerpoint or Excel etc to actually make a page you want to display on the web is asking for trouble. IE7 doesn't support it properly, IE8 definitely won't. Firefox etc have no idea what to do with it.



rdouglass -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 11:17:38)

quote:

You'd put me down as an anti and yes, in a lot of cases I am anti mainly because MS try to tell everyone that it has to be done their way,


Nah, I'd put you down as 'anti-MS' primarily due to the comments you make about the 'evil empire' and not so much about the facts. [;)]

Yes, I absolutely agree that MS does things their own way most times until they get hit hard enough to budge. But they do 'raise the bar' on many things to get standard-ized with many things they implement (or steal [;)]). Many times they do it their way because there is no standard for what they're doing.

Case-in-point: ActiveX. Yes, it was like 'swiss cheese' with the holes it had in it but it sure did propel multi-media on web pages into standards. People said they wanted stuff like that so the 'standards camp' in essence had to come up with stuff to replace things that ActiveX does.

I am not saying MS is standards based at all; I'm just presenting a contrary viewpoint. In fact, I think MS is one of the primary reasons there are web standards at all.



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 12:57:04)

Formatted in Expression Web.

Eventually, I want to "include" my navigation bar

As a test, I created my banner with a jpg and a single line of text inside a DIV and put that into a file to be "included".

I created a "Style" called "MiniMenu" to make the text bold, 12 px, and a border top and bottom.

It looked fine in my "includes" HTML file (logo.htm).

But in the web page (index.htm), the formatting for the text did not hold... the text got "included" ok, but it was turned into very large font size without the border.

I put the "MiniMenu" style in the stylesheet attached to both "logo.htm" and "index.htm", but that didn't help.

Thanks for taking a look!

CJ






quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

Formatted text file? How did you format it? Please don't say Word.

The norm for stuff online is:

If it's a plainish page you want people to be able to look at or print from screen then set it up as HTML.

If it's a Word or PDF document they need to download and print then just link to it.

Using Word, Powerpoint or Excel etc to actually make a page you want to display on the web is asking for trouble. IE7 doesn't support it properly, IE8 definitely won't. Firefox etc have no idea what to do with it.




rdouglass -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 13:07:54)

Do you by chance happen to have a URL? I scanned the post and couldn't see one (with all the clutter I posted perhaps?[;)]).

Anyways, it sounds like you might be having an issue with directories and paths. That was one of the things that got me when I was jumping into CSS.

You reference the style sheet from the perspective of the page it's being used on and any references (images, etc.) are referenced from the perspective of the style sheet.

For instance, if you had a background image that you wanted to use in your CSS, the image was in an /images folder and the stylesheet was in a /CSS folder, the style link on an index page might look like this:

<link href="/css/main.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" />

but the CSS inside main.css would reference the image background form the perespective of the CSS folder as in:

background-image:url("../images/background.gif");

See what I mean? Might not be the issue but then again, might be related. Hope it helps.



jaybee -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 14:59:14)

Yes, a link would help no end.


quote:

'evil empire'


That's Wombley not me. I've never called it the evil empire. Lots of other things but never that. [:D]



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 15:53:04)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TravelswCharlie

Eventually, I want to "include" my navigation bar
I put the "MiniMenu" style in the stylesheet attached to both "logo.htm" and "index.htm", but that didn't help.



Well, dang! If that ain't the cat's meow, I don't know what is!

I went back for another test, and just made a clean page, "included" my old FrontPage navigation bar, and BAM!

It works like a charm and even publishes correctly.

http://www.campingandrving.com/campground_visitor.htm

The vertical nav bar at the right of the screen is my old FrontPage nav bar "included".

If you look at one of my other pages, you see this same nav bar, but it was just cut and pasted in, because I couldn't figure out how to make "includes" work.

I've been trying to take the wheel too much, I think.

I think I'll go back to bed and pull the covers over my head.

Thanks to all,

CJ



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 16:14:07)

Sorry for not including my URL.

I think you may have spotted my problem; I need to really dig in and study how to get the paths right.

Here is a good page to illustrate what's happening:

http://www.campingandrving.com/internet_speeds%200.htm

The ironic thing about this is that it wasn't even intended to be published page. I was collecting Internet speed information from friends and "friends I've never met", and wanted to put it where they could see it, but not make it look like I was trying to spam them or anything like that... so I just put it up quickly and without any ads or navigation.

First thing I knew, it was getting search engine hits, using the actual EW page name, since I hadn't used any H1 or any header tags.

So I looked at it again, and saw that big bold font that you can see now in the second table, if you scroll down the page. Looks kind of funny for a table, right?

I had not assigned ANY "style", but just selected all the text and made it BOLD, so people could read it.

I understand now that EW, in the background, assigned it a style name, but I didn't know, at the time, that EW would do that.

Then later, I must have done something else that caused that style to be changed, so it assigned that same font to whatever style name it had assigned to this table.

THAT's the sort of thing I want to do when I want to do it, but not in the background like this!

Just now... when I went to find this page to show you, the first table appeared to have no text in it... but after thinking about it a while, I realized that something else I had done had caused the font to turn white. Probably when I was fooling around with different ideas to type a menu on a jpg to use for a Banner.

I had done this table the same way as the first one ( the one further down on the page). I just had a list I'd typed , made into a table (in Word, Yes, Jaybee [smile]) and made the text Bold.

So, just now, I made the text black (it shows up now, so indeed, that was the problem, something had turned the text white), but that may make something else black that I want to be white.

SIGH

Here is my other problem, using includes, but now apparently fixed... and I don't know why...

The sidebar menu on the page below is an "include". All other sidebar menus on my site are cut and paste from my old FrontPage Menus.

http://www.campingandrving.com/campground_visitor.htm


Thanks!

CJ



TravelswCharlie -> RE: To include or not or what? (3/19/2008 16:36:30)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

Yes, a link would help no end.


quote:

'evil empire'


That's Wombley not me. I've never called it the evil empire. Lots of other things but never that. [:D]

I just included the link in a REPLY to myself, since I had gone off and somehow stumbled onto the answer, whatever it was.

But, this is in reply to the anti-Microsoft stuff.

I have two sons... actually I have three sons, but the third... actually the first... doesn't care about MS one way or the other, being in another field altogether.

The other two are both in the business of helping other businesses.

The youngest of the three avoids MS like the plague... he would never use it if he didn'[t have to, and he bashes it at the blink of an eye.

Middle son, or "son number two", as he is often known, loves MS, uses it daily and has an anwer to every bash.

When we get together, it's a subject that must be avoided, as politics must be avoided at a gathering that includes members of the radical right and looney left.

Thanks for being willing to help!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1425781