Home Made Website ?

[thomas]

LOL at the dreamweaver is frontpage comments.

So anyone that uses only dreamweavers code view doesn't know how to code?

I use dreamweaver for my sites. I find it really handy, the code view is pretty damn good and easy to use, both for html and php. Better than notepad and frontpage.

Design view isn't too bad...I believe the newer versions make CSS layouts? The dreamweaver i've got is just tables which are okkayyy if you're not that bothered. There is a table mode which is fecking awful for poor code with dreamweaver, but if you want to set up some normal html tables then it produces them quite quickly.

I find it handy as you can do templates for sites (if you can't use a CMS) and I can easily manage them all and update them. The FTP is a bit weak but does the job.

I've been using notepad++ at work recently, which for a code only program is quite good.

 

[HJ]

Try HTML Kit if you are looking for a code editor, it even has a spell checker (and if you don't like that built in one there is a plugin which lets you use the Word spell checker) and a proper FTP client. I have seen the code which Dreamweaver churns out and it is obvious that people who use Dreamweaver either don't know what valid code should look like or just don't care...

 

[peanut]

haha, yeah thats a bummer, i'm dyslexic so my spelling is rather poor.

well if you know that then why don't you use a spell check? especially as it is supposed to be for business clients. I use one and I'm not dyslexic

Just yankin ya chain.

Frankly this thread has been ruined by your silly bickering. The original poster has long since left .
Probably gone to another forum I shouldn't wonder.

Why don't you two start your own thread and then you can argue as much as you like .

 

[thomas]

Try HTML Kit if you are looking for a code editor, it even has a spell checker (and if you don't like that built in one there is a plugin which lets you use the Word spell checker) and a proper FTP client. I have seen the code which Dreamweaver churns out and it is obvious that people who use Dreamweaver either don't know what valid code should look like or just don't care...

Dreamweaver has a spell checker too. Even if the code isn't 100% valid, you just need to validate it and correct the mistakes. It's not that hard.

I really don't think dreamweaver's code is as bad as you think.

 

[gaz]

Why don't you two start your own thread and then you can argue as much as you like .

i wish not to argue, but clearly just make a point to one person who thinks he knows best. when clearly he doesn't.

 

[HJ]

i wish not to argue, but clearly just make a point to one person who thinks he knows best. when clearly he doesn't.

Good idea to check your code is actually valid before trying to be clever...

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

 

[Carwash]

If the Good Lord had meant us to use wysiwyg editors to write structural markup, he wouldn't have given us emacs.

 

[thomas]

Good idea to check your code is actually valid before trying to be clever...

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capitalwebdesigns.co.uk%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

Oh give over. Completely valid code is not always possible. Usually, you get it all right and them some browser doesn't like it so you have to make the code incorrect to get it to work.

 

[Carwash]

Oh give over. Completely valid code is not always possible. Usually, you get it all right and them some browser doesn't like it so you have to make the code incorrect to get it to work.

So... completely valid code is possible, but you usually choose not to use it?

 

[gaz]

Good idea to check your code is actually valid before trying to be clever...

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

Why don't you check the source and see how a site works before you try and be clever as well. I don't even use Dreamweaver. and my site is built and managed by joomla. So i've made a mistake by using XHTML strict and placing in a target _blank. easily fixable by changing to XHTML transitional.


Edit: oh look how easy it was to fix that one error. thanks for letting me know

 

[HJ]

If the Good Lord had meant us to use wysiwyg editors to write structural markup, he wouldn't have given us emacs.

How true...

 

[HJ]

Why don't you check the source and see how a site works before you try and be clever as well. I don't even use Dreamweaver. and my site is built and managed by joomla. So i've made a mistake by using XHTML strict and placing in a target _blank. easily fixable by changing to XHTML transitional.


Edit: oh look how easy it was to fix that one error. thanks for letting me know

You are welcome, checking the validity of you code is always good practice. There are ways of getting round the use of target _blank in XHTML strict, but forcing the opening of a link in a new tab (or window for those with backward browsers) is not good practice if you are "specilaizing in accesibilty", screen readers don't like it...