Re: FP 2003 what features to use
From: chris leeds (chris_at_nedp.net)
Date: 03/22/04
- Next message: chris leeds: "Re: host only supports fp2000 ext but I have fp2003"
- Previous message: news frontiernet.net: "Cross-Browser problems with Netscpae 7.0 & 4.72"
- In reply to: Bill Hunt: "FP 2003 what features to use"
- Next in thread: E. T. Culling: "Re: FP 2003 what features to use"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:53:02 -0500
using the dynamic web templates/ editable regions would be great for your
situation. the FrontPage include page feature is a save time function but
won't update all that well without the extensions (same for the dwt/
editable regions). You may want to look at a different host provider.
there are a lot more windows hosts than there used to be and the price is
often quite similar to Unix hosts.
HTH
-- The email address on this posting is a "black hole". I got tired of all the spam. Please feel free to contact me here: http://nedp.net/contact/ -- "Bill Hunt" <wjhunt@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:f37a146a.0403221052.fc8b714@posting.google.com... > I'm starting to use FP 2003 after using FP 2002 for ~2 months. Our > site was built last year using Netscape Composer using SSI for menus > and navigation bars and hand built templates. > > Composer was very buggy and annoying but free which matters to our all > volunteer non-profit. Our site is hosted on a Lin ux bo running > Apache. I use PHP and MySQL where I need them. I defined a manual > version control process that is cumbersome but allows changes to > backed out. > > I'm a 30 year career programmer (Windows kernel stuff) and can endure > crappy tools and a tedious, error-[rone process. My co-developer > stopped doing any changes because the process was too error-prone for > him. I looked at WYSIWYG HTML editors and reluctantly decided that FP > 2003 was the right choice in spite of the cost. I mostly want to make > it possible for other people in the non-profit to create content. > > Our server will not have FP extensions or any ODBC/ASP/IIS stuff. > WebDAV is possible but FTP seems more secure and easier for me. > > So which FP 2003 features should I use and avoid? > > - shared borders sounded like an interesting alternative to SSI but it > appears to be tied to FP server entensions. Include Page seems to be > a MS version of SSI. > > - conflict detection sounds valuable. Any downsides? > > - automatic synchronization sounds a bit risky when there have been > interlocking updates. > > - check-out/check-in seems to be vulnerable to someone forgetting to > check-in a file. I don't see any clear information on clearing the > lock. > > - publishing sounds good for my co-workers but I read messages > describing problems with FTP as a link to the server. Are we better > just doing server updates manually with a separate FTP program? > > - automatic thumbnails sounds useful since making thumbnails of bird > and flower pictures is a big problem for us. However, it sounds a bit > limited. > > Any comments on these or other features would be appreciated. > > The online help seems pretty bad compared to past MS products. The > Buyens book seems the most detailed but no book has enought detailed > info especially on using FP w/o FP server extensions. > > Bill > http://www.wcosf.org/
- Next message: chris leeds: "Re: host only supports fp2000 ext but I have fp2003"
- Previous message: news frontiernet.net: "Cross-Browser problems with Netscpae 7.0 & 4.72"
- In reply to: Bill Hunt: "FP 2003 what features to use"
- Next in thread: E. T. Culling: "Re: FP 2003 what features to use"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
