Adobe GoLive 6.0

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>I wish Apple would carbonize Claris HomePage and make it an iApp. It was a great program back in the day. And it was "free"

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's not gonna happen, I'm afraid, just read this pressrelease :-)



    SoftPress Systems announced today that the light version of their award-winning Web design package, Freeway 3 LE, is now being sold by Apple Computer as a central part of their K-6 Web Publishing Kit, a bundle marketed in the Apple Learning Series. The bundle may be purchased on the Web through the Apple Store for Education or through Apple's approved Education dealers and account representatives. The recommended retail price of the K-6 Web Publishing Kit is US$99 when purchased with a new Macintosh or US$199 when purchased as a stand-alone product. Further details are available from the Apple Web site at



    "We're absolutely delighted that Apple is supplying Freeway to a market that's of major importance to us," commented SoftPress Systems Managing Director, Richard Logan. "Freeway's ease-of-use and accessibility has always made it popular in the education market and I'm sure that the K-6 Web Publishing Kit is the ideal vehicle to raise Freeway's profile."



  • Reply 42 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

    <strong>



    Your right on this. But I did look at the code it makes for image rollover....the code is over half page long :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Half a page? When looking at a source editor, how do you define where a "page" starts and where one ends? I can't believe if you pare down the browsers you're developing for (4.x and beyond) that it would produce more than a few lines for a rollover. Why would Adobe be so sloppy / not make the needed changes if it did this in earlier versions?



    Sizzle, regaring the goofy character on my last post, I must've accidentally deleted a text selection - didn't realize it at the time. Sorry. Basically, I was just saying I had spoken with a Softpress rep about Freeway's W3C support (which still seems lackluster since little info is available on their site and no one is stepping to the plate in that regard).
  • Reply 43 of 81
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]Basically, I was just saying I had spoken with a Softpress rep about Freeway's W3C support (which still seems lackluster since little info is available on their site and no one is stepping to the plate in that regard<hr></blockquote>

    Wouldn't judge them too harshly on this. None of the WYSIWYG HTML editors come close to producing code that validates to W3C standards.
  • Reply 44 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>

    Wouldn't judge them too harshly on this. None of the WYSIWYG HTML editors come close to producing code that validates to W3C standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Hmm. Maybe Barebones should put a layout engine ontop of BBEdit - that would validate.





    What about Comoser under Mozilla's latest build. That should be as standards compliant as anything out there...does it produce clean, valid code?



    [ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 45 of 81
    [quote]Those of us who've met with Macromedia are satisfied that the next version of Dreamweaver will be considerably enhanced with regard to Web standards. I can't say more about that. We haven't yet been able to hold a meeting with Adobe regarding GoLive. I don't really know Adobe's plans for their authoring tool. At present, and for the foreseeable future, Dreamweaver is the market leader, so if they become far more compliant in their next version, well, that will be more impetus for Adobe to follow suit--if it isn't already planning to somehow trump Macromedia and get more compliant first.<hr></blockquote>

    J Zeldman of the Web Standards Project from <a href="http://news.com.com/2008-1082-277050.html?legacy=cnet"; target="_blank">CNet</a>. When you will see the next version is another matter.



    [ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
  • Reply 46 of 81
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Moog



    Golive uses 'propriety' CSObject script to do the image rollover.



    The scipt has very very huge amount of code for variable that's why I said the code is over half page long.
  • Reply 47 of 81
    Yes GoLives code for rollovers etc is terrible. I use it to layout my tables etc and then code the rest by hand. Javascript rollover code is everywhere and can be easily adapted even by me and im far from experienced with coding.
  • Reply 48 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Wow, that's pretty poor app design if you ask me. Is it still this way under the GL 6 betas? I can't believe Microsoft and Netscape and Adobe and all the other companies involved are still dogging it on the W3C standards issue. This should be a non-factor by now - EVERYthing should be 100% compliant with HTML 4, CSS 1&2, DOM L1, XML 1, etc etc etc. F*cking ridiculous that developers and users still have to even think about it.



    Lazy corporate schmucks.
  • Reply 49 of 81
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:

    <strong>Wow, that's pretty poor app design if you ask me. Is it still this way under the GL 6 betas? </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Unfortunately. The answer is YES. Coding is no better at least in the beta
  • Reply 50 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Shite. Anyone seen / know of a Dreamweaver 5 beta and when it's due out? Supposedly GL 6 will ship before March 1, so I'm guessing a near simultaneous release?
  • Reply 51 of 81
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]I can't believe Microsoft and Netscape and Adobe and all the other companies involved are still dogging it on the W3C standards issue. This should be a non-factor by now - EVERYthing should be 100% compliant with HTML 4, CSS 1&2, DOM L1, XML 1, etc etc etc. F*cking ridiculous that developers and users still have to even think about it.<hr></blockquote>

    There is NO reason for things to go any further. MS owns the browser market and have shown no compulsion to get 100% compliant, except where it gets them something--like XML. Most end users don't give a rat-fsck about W3C compliance as long as things display on the client end, and most people coding have to deal with millions of legacy sites that use tables for layout and clients don't want to pay $$ to recode. It will be a VERY LONG transition to compliance.



    If you have looked at some sample CSS to do 2-column or 3-column layouts the CSS code is very "goofy" as there are lots of workarounds for browser bugs. Check out <a href="http://www.glish.com"; target="_blank">www.glish.com</a> and hsi style sheet comments. its a mess until DW and GoLive make it easy to do style sheets and divs, it won't matter.
  • Reply 52 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Well honestly, I wouldn't give a rat f*ck what the average Joe thinks about W3C compliance, because the average Joe doesn't know one browser from another, one type of site from another. The opinions that matter are developer opinions, and they've been screaming for it for a long time (at least they were a couple years back when I got out of the business)...I just don't understand why it would be so "hard" for MS or anyone else to add in the remainder of these standards, given they have shite-loads of programmers, testers and the like. It can't be that difficult for them. Not like they're trying to make a Mac emulator or something.



    Anyway, I used the time-honored technique of searching Amazon for info on DW 5 - the DW 5 Bible won't be available until June, so draw your own conclusions on that one. Looks like they'll be at least a couple months behind GoLive.
  • Reply 53 of 81
    Hi there,



    I'm looking for a basic WYSIWYG/HTML editor type of program; at the moment I'm still stuck with Pagemill in Classic ('cos it was free), but I'm really keen to get out of the Classic rut as quickly as possible.



    As far as actual design/coding goes, I'm keeping things very simple; a) to keep things quick on 56k and b) because I'm just using HTML because it does text wrapping and table-resizing automatically and I'm writing a lot of "form" pages; I'm basically just slinging some tables together.



    Thing is, this means that my sites have lots of pages, with an awful lot of links between them, so I'm more interested in good overall site management rather than actual design.



    I was pretty interested in Freeway until some of you said that this was a bit of a problem with it - would you be able to explain in a bit more detail? Thanks
  • Reply 54 of 81
    OK, I had a look at the trial version of Freeway, all I can say is: "what? No source editing?"



    *wrinkles nose*
  • Reply 55 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Hey Leonis,



    Are there any other areas specific to GL6 coding that produce bloated results, or is it just the Javascript stuff? I presume the HTML / CSS is pretty clean, if nothing else?
  • Reply 56 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    *bump*



    Speaking of rollover code...



    "Smart and lean rollovers to easily create and maintain rollover elements "



    from <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/overview.html"; target="_blank">the official GoLive 6 page</a>



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Either they did something to improve the code between beta and final, or Adobe is full of shite.
  • Reply 57 of 81
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Actually Golive isn't using javascipt at all for rollover....as I mentioned before. It uses it's own script called CSscript.....



    Other than rollover.....I find the layout grid feature does create a lot of useless table tags......



    If you do rollover scipt by hand, set up layout only using table the page should be just fine even you use Golive. But also keep in mind that Golive does screw up server scripts (eg. ASP) !
  • Reply 58 of 81
    supersuper Posts: 82member
    GoLive shouldn't touch your ASP tags. Version 5 won't and version 4 doesn't touch my ASP tags.
  • Reply 59 of 81
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Leonis, what about using GL6's layout boxes (I forget what GL calls them) rather than tables? That is, when doing the layout you position your elements using the movable, floating layers, and then convert them to a table (for 3.x browsers and earlier) when you're done - does *THAT* create a lot of bloat-code? I recal DW 3 did a pretty decent job of this, so I can't imagine why at this stage of the game both DW and GoLive wouldn't create clean tables from layers....



    I'm starting to lose my enthusiasm for GL6 before I've ever used it!



  • Reply 60 of 81
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by super:

    <strong>GoLive shouldn't touch your ASP tags. Version 5 won't and version 4 doesn't touch my ASP tags.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I know. But for some reason it still fu*ks up the code at some degree.
Sign In or Register to comment.