Tom
Sat Jul 01 20:20:40 CDT 2006
The newsgroup you need to be posting in:
microsoft.public.expression.webdesigner
--
Tom Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
FrontPage Support:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/
----------
"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eABBnNXnGHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
>> Only on your computer. Since Academy is not web safe, nobody else will
>> see that font unless they have it installed on their computer too.
>
> Well, I am just using Academy as an example, and yes, it is not a web safe
> font. The actual font used in this example, is listed in font family of
> the style sheet and is available in most Asian computers installed with XP
> using IE.
>
>> It is more than easy to have multiple font declarations for multiple
>> links on the same page....
>
> That is really new to me. If you could, kindly advise what will be the
> key words used if I need to search additional information about this from
> the net. I will also try myself, but thanks for point out. I don't know
> it could be done with multiple font declarations for multiple links.
>
>>What? EWD only does what you direct it to do.
>
> With regard of relative links changes, I am sure that I did not ask EWD to
> change any of it. I opened a footer page from a folder (e.g. A) and
> trying to change a link's font (only one link and in this case, it is
> written in English) back to Times New Roman. I did not change any of
> other 10 links.
>
> When I saved the page, all links were saved to as referred to the "A"
> folder for where the footer page is resided. For example, one link is
> titled Customer Service (in another language) and its old link is to, for
> example, ".../B/customerservice.asp" and it has been changed to
> ".../A/customerservice.asp".
>
> For all these links, I did not even touch them as they were perfectly with
> their intended fonts (using Asian font), and I was trying to change only
> one link written in English to be using English font.
>
> In any case, I understand this is a beta version, and even it is not a
> "problem" for the software, we might just have to change some of our old
> habits.
>
> Finally, this is my little wishes for MS:
>
> (1) Very detailed help file for the final version: I assume MS should know
> that many (although not all) users who are using FP are not "professional"
> programmers. Although FP has done a great job in the past for helping us
> accomplished what we wanted, it also generated some not-very-written HTML
> codes. Not a complain but a simple fact. When we're moving from FP to
> EWD, it'd be the best if we have certain kind of tools or wizard that
> could help us to "convert" or "migrate" old HTML files to a more EWD
> compatible HTML files. In addition, please provide lots of detailed
> instruction, tutorials, and so on, for "non-professional" programmers to
> develop a more cleaner web pages using more correct codes, and CSS is a
> good example for that.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> "Murray" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
> news:%23C2BHMGnGHA.4216@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> However, I found another way of making the change is from the picture
>>> properties and to remove boarder from there. Strange enough, using
>>> conventional Format Boarder won't work.
>>
>> No - that's not strange, it's logical. By using conventional format
>> border, you would get this -
>>
>> img { border:none; }
>>
>> which will not apply to this -
>>
>> <a href="whatever"><img ...></a>
>>
>> You would have to use this -
>>
>> a img { border:none; }
>>
>> to force the application of that style to images that are links.
>>
>>> Other silent changes are mostly related to styles such as fonts.
>>
>> I cannot comment on those since I don't know exactly what you are
>> describing.
>>
>>> In the past, I could ignore some styles listed in stylesheets by using
>>> Format Font in FP.
>>
>> Yes, well that gives you non-standard code that will not validate. EWD
>> has no way to do this.
>>
>>> but I could also use FP to format a link to another font (e.g. Academy).
>>> That works fine.
>>
>> Only on your computer. Since Academy is not web safe, nobody else will
>> see that font unless they have it installed on their computer too.
>>
>>> The reason for this is that I am using two languages (Chinese and
>>> English) for developing pages, and some Chinese fonts look better for
>>> certain words and vice versa.
>>
>> You will have to learn how to use the regionalization headers of the
>> pages to effectively transfer font assignments like this.
>>
>>> When using EWB, it will enforce strictly which might be good but does
>>> not look very well. That means it will look for the linked stylesheet
>>> and changed all links to that particular font. Any changes I made with
>>> EWB using Format Font won't work.
>>
>> Well, that only means that you don't know how to use EWD with CSS well.
>> It'll come to you, but you have to study and work at it. It is more than
>> easy to have multiple font declarations for multiple links on the same
>> page....
>>
>>> I also noticed that "relative links" might also be changed sometime.
>>
>> What? EWD only does what you direct it to do.
>>
>>> I just thought it might take us some time to learn it and may need do
>>> some house cleaning works for all the old works done with FP.
>>
>> Without a doubt, EWD is going to put pressure on everyone to ramp their
>> understanding of CSS, and standards-compliant layout methods, and will
>> surely require both mental and physical cleanup.
>>
>>> Eventually, we might have a "cleaner" and "powerful" site, but it would
>>> take some efforts.
>>
>> Yes - and that's a good thing. Your old methods will no longer be good
>> enough.
>>
>> --
>> Murray
>> --------------
>> MVP FrontPage
>>
>>
>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:OEC2jFGnGHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You are correct that these images are links, and I did not know if
>>> links, by default, will be added by boarders or not.
>>>
>>> However, I found another way of making the change is from the picture
>>> properties and to remove boarder from there. Strange enough, using
>>> conventional Format Boarder won't work.
>>>
>>> Other silent changes are mostly related to styles such as fonts.
>>>
>>> I have to admit that my site is not very well designed in the beginning.
>>> I have a stylesheet comes with the template package that I purchased and
>>> used for most pages including ASP and HTML.
>>>
>>> There is another stylesheet residing in the folder of the shopping cart
>>> which comes with the shopping cart package and is used for the control
>>> of shopping carts pages.
>>>
>>> In the past, I could ignore some styles listed in stylesheets by using
>>> Format Font in FP. For example, in the stylesheet, a link is defined by
>>> a font (e.g. Times New Roman), but I could also use FP to format a link
>>> to another font (e.g. Academy). That works fine.
>>>
>>> The reason for this is that I am using two languages (Chinese and
>>> English) for developing pages, and some Chinese fonts look better for
>>> certain words and vice versa.
>>>
>>> When using EWB, it will enforce strictly which might be good but does
>>> not look very well. That means it will look for the linked stylesheet
>>> and changed all links to that particular font. Any changes I made with
>>> EWB using Format Font won't work.
>>>
>>> I also noticed that "relative links" might also be changed sometime.
>>>
>>> That's all for now. I believe this might be a powerful tool but I guess
>>> that design concept might be totally different than FP, which could be
>>> the reason for MS to come up a new one and stop FP.
>>>
>>> I just thought it might take us some time to learn it and may need do
>>> some house cleaning works for all the old works done with FP.
>>>
>>> Eventually, we might have a "cleaner" and "powerful" site, but it would
>>> take some efforts.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Murray" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e9RG4ZDnGHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> For example, a boarder had been added to images without my knowledge
>>>>> and it's difficult to find where to remove it.
>>>>
>>>> Are these images links to something? If so, then EWD is not adding the
>>>> border, you are by making them links. To get rid of the borders, you
>>>> would need to have a style rule like this -
>>>>
>>>> a img { border: none; }
>>>>
>>>> What other changes are you seeing? I have not found EWD to do any
>>>> "silent changes".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Murray
>>>> --------------
>>>> MVP FrontPage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23aUd1ICnGHA.2264@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I found one of the most potential risk of using this beta is about
>>>>>managing styles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it is because of the beta or maybe it is because old FP did not
>>>>> do the work well or maybe this is just by design.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, many pages have been "silently" changed their style. For
>>>>> example, a boarder had been added to images without my knowledge and
>>>>> it's difficult to find where to remove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is my guess that using EWD will eventually come up a cleaner page
>>>>> with many new features, but it would take some house-cleaning works
>>>>> for all the jobs done by FP previously.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cabby" <BassInk(nospam)@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:F9D563CC-A96F-4554-AD8D-7FF8B7788EFA@microsoft.com...
>>>>>>I downloaded EWD last Friday and am loving it. Very cool interface and
>>>>>>so
>>>>>> much more functional than FP. I've had some glitches with things in
>>>>>> the beta
>>>>>> not yet working, but I've found work arounds for these things--so
>>>>>> far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They say there will be a "reasonably" priced upgrade from FP to
>>>>>>> EWD...dunno
>>>>>>> what reasonable means though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like EWD too..pretty cool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uq0KmymlGHA.2344@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> | Hi,
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Has anyone tested Expression Web Designer?
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | I've used it for two days so far (working on a live site) and
>>>>>>> found it, as
>>>>>>> | claimed, is easy to use and retains most functions of FrontPage in
>>>>>>> addition
>>>>>>> | to the new ones.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | It is also different than Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
>>>>>>> edition which
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> | buggy and resource draining.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Although there are some small bugs and problems (consider it is a
>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>> | review version), the overall performance is pretty stable - knock
>>>>>>> 3 times.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | One particular thing that I am very pleased about this edition,
>>>>>>> and that
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> | it will not force you to go through and correct all "possible
>>>>>>> coding
>>>>>>> errors"
>>>>>>> | (as VWD would) before allowing to view a page in design view.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Why is this important? Yes, we made many mistakes during
>>>>>>> developing Web
>>>>>>> | pages (especially for those like myself who are not professional
>>>>>>> | programmers), such as not inserting "alt attributes" for images,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> putting
>>>>>>> | incorrect attributes (e.g. marginwidth) in wrong places - and many
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> | are done by our ex-best friend - FrontPage.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | But why do we have to correct each of them (image how many of them
>>>>>>> if one
>>>>>>> | had used FP for developing Web pages throughout the past years)
>>>>>>> before we
>>>>>>> | can even see a page in the Design View? That requirement is
>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>> | ridiculous.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | For those who are concerned the discontinued of FrontPage, I'd
>>>>>>> encourage
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> | to download and try Expression Web Designer.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Once thing that I am not so happy about the current community
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> | is about sending web pages through Outlook and the lack of "mail
>>>>>>> merge"
>>>>>>> | capability as in Word.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | When I try to email web page within EWD, Outlook automatically
>>>>>>> block the
>>>>>>> | page as "unsafe" attachment. This will not happen if using
>>>>>>> FrontPage.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | And when I work with FP 2003 for mail merging newsletters to
>>>>>>> subscribers,
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> | had to save it to a local copy and open with Word 2003 and perform
>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>> | merger.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | I would expect this can be improved with EWD so that we can use
>>>>>>> mail merge
>>>>>>> | directly with EWD.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Finally, does anyone have any inside information about the final
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>> | date of EWD and its possible pricing?
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | That's all for now and hope this helps.
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>