_____/ On Tuesday 23 August 2005 11:27, [rf] wrote : \_____
> Jim Scott wrote:
>
>> I know that several here do not use FP and I understand their reasons.
>> However are there any of you who DO use FP?
I used to, but not for a long time. It was a good way to start getting a
feel for Web design. Time and experience have shown that it was not
necessary and encouraged poor knowledge of (X)HTML/CSS. The outcome of this
abstraction is lack of flexibility and dependency on a single-platform
product rather than on a text editor.
>> Just interested, as people who are content with things tend to get on and
>> say nothing.
>> However are there any of you who DO use FP?
I know a few who use Dreamweaver, but Frontpage seems to have lost its
spark.
> Yep. I use it all the time. It makes a mighty fine FTP client (usually) to
> synchronize the local copy of my web sites with the copies at the server.
> I know, I could find another one just as good but, well, I have FP and am
> used to it.
I recommend KDE and Konqueror if you were ever to consider Linux? You can
edit the files over FTP as if they were placed locally. KDE does all the
copying over FTP in the background.
> Oh, do you mean do I use it to actually produce/write HTML or something?
> Not a bloody chance. FP produces invalid bloated and deprecated HTML with
> a very low understanding of CSS and totally rips apart anything I write in
> PHP. I never ever use the editor bit[1]. Crimson editor is the one I use
> for producing web/PHP pages.
>
> [1] With one single exception. If I have a bunch of images to plonk on a
> page then I might use FP to produce a dummy page that I drop those images
> into. I like the way it puts the dimensions of the images into the
> generated HTML. I then copy/paste the code into my real editor and discard
> the FP produced dummy page.
I do the same thing with KDE's thumbnail gallery generator.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz "Slashdot is standard-compliant... in Japan"
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
