Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, I must admit I'm growing rather weary of all the negative remarks about Dreamweaver. I too am a Dreamweaver user. However on OS X at least, the preview mode still isn't up to scratch, although it is better than the previous version. Kornel Lesinski wrote: Are you sure? Some time ago there was a deal between Macromedia and Opera: http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020702.dml (oh, and Apple: http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/30/opera) Macromedia licensed Opera to be the rendering engine on OS X. However I believe they use a different rendering engine on Windoze. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
A few other things to be aware of with Contribute 3: You cannot edit pages that use server side includes. To be able to see the page in it's entirety, you have to instead use Dreamweaver Templates of Library Items. Doing this then ties you to Macromedia's proprietary standards , rather than standards compliant XHTML. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:15:19 -, Sam Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone out there got any experience of adding a fully devised compliant template to Contribute to let the content owners manage their own pages ? Is it simply a case of defining the editable regions or should you build the site and then define the content that can be changed? Was planning on implementing along with: http://www.sammyco.co.uk/acttrwebpre/company.php ...would be interested to hear of any results good and bad - off list of you feel your reply isn't wide enough for everyone to be interested... Cheers SH ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
You can edit pages which contain SSI's, just not any of the content IN the SSI's. This is the perfect way to lock parts of the design you don't want the client to touch. No need for DW Templates at all! :) On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:22:38 +1100, David McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few other things to be aware of with Contribute 3: You cannot edit pages that use server side includes. To be able to see the page in it's entirety, you have to instead use Dreamweaver Templates of Library Items. Doing this then ties you to Macromedia's proprietary standards , rather than standards compliant XHTML. On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:15:19 -, Sam Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone out there got any experience of adding a fully devised compliant template to Contribute to let the content owners manage their own pages ? Is it simply a case of defining the editable regions or should you build the site and then define the content that can be changed? Was planning on implementing along with: http://www.sammyco.co.uk/acttrwebpre/company.php ...would be interested to hear of any results good and bad - off list of you feel your reply isn't wide enough for everyone to be interested... Cheers SH ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Hey David You cannot edit pages that use server side includes. To be able to see the page in it's entirety, you have to instead use Dreamweaver Templates of Library Items. Huh? You can't edit content that is being included, so if I have mypage.shtml and includes header.html, I can edit the content of mypage but not header. Personally I think that makes perfect sense and is highly desirable. Apart from that SSI works very well with Contribute 3. Doing this then ties you to Macromedia's proprietary standards , rather than standards compliant XHTML. You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive, which is very misleading. There is nothing about the Dreamweaver template system that doesn't conform with XHTML. Dreamweavers templating works through the use of comments - nothing more. -- Mark Stanton Gruden Pty Ltd http://www.gruden.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
You can edit pages which contain SSI's, just not any of the content IN the SSI's. This is the perfect way to lock parts of the design you don't want the client to touch. No need for DW Templates at all! :) Slightly OT, but anyway: Is there a way to get DW to display the contents of SSIs on a remote server, while editing on a workstation? h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Hi Sammy ***disclaimer*** I work for a Macromedia partner. I do lots of MM related stuff and like *some* of their gear a fair bit (esp. Coldfusion and Contribute). ...But I have my WSG hat on when on this list - not my MM hat. * Yes I've done a fair bit of this over the past 6 months or so. We have an intranet/wiki thing we use as a documentation tool in the office and it is completely Contribute based and valid XHTML. The system depends on parsing the pages server side (when the user performs an edit) to pull out meta data and bits of content to feed into the search, syndication feed and so on. Basically a poor mans CMS with no database. So if the validity breaks the site breaks. This is actually the first use I have ever found for XHTML, apart from this site I am HTML4 all the way. I can say that it is possible to enter invalid mark up into C3, but you have to try pretty damn hard (i.e. put an unescaped ampersand in the URL dialogue). On the whole it gets things right and forces XHTML. The other thing I was trying to test out with this intranet app was the CSS support. This has been a major problem in Contribute for us in the past. For our intranet I pulled a design off CSS Zen Garden, tweaked it a little, replaced the images and went for it. CSS support in Contribute 3 is *much* improved (Dreamweaver engine... yadda, yadda). The editing mode still has relatively minor problems with some position/padding/margin/width stuff but its workable (previously is was horrible). I've started writing up on some of the stuff I've done with Contribute at http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/contribute/articles/cps_cf.html. That article covers about the first 1/3 of what I have been messing with, there should be more to come early next year. I've also got a demo version of the sample app online, if anyone wants to take me at my word contact me off list :) Also I can tell you Jesse's comments are pretty much on the money in terms for rendering, C2 used to use Opera for its internal browser but they changed to IE on PC and god knows what on the Mac in C3. -- Mark Stanton Gruden Pty Ltd http://www.gruden.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Hi Sam Whilsts not completely off-topic, this is relevant: It depends on the complexity of the CSS code for layout Macromedia's Contribute uses the same page-render engine as Dreamweaver, and we all know what that's like to work with ;) Well, provided your design doesn't use floats, different display: properties, and relative positioning, you should be fine (with the latest version, of course) As for pre-written templates? Contribute wasn't built with pre-designed templates in mind, moreather, so satisfy pre-built websites by professional developers (read: us). Developing a working template for Contribute is trial and error, unfortunatly... not only do you have the issues I've described above to contend with, but also browser incompatibilities too. Untill Macromedia get their act together about standards-compliant rendering (preferably without bugs too), then Contribute can only really be considered for use with tabular layouts. Regards -David -- Original Message -- From: Sam Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:15:19 - Anyone out there got any experience of adding a fully devised compliant template to Contribute to let the content owners manage their own pages ? Is it simply a case of defining the editable regions or should you build the site and then define the content that can be changed? Was planning on implementing along with: http://www.sammyco.co.uk/acttrwebpre/company.php ...would be interested to hear of any results good and bad - off list of you feel your reply isn't wide enough for everyone to be interested... Cheers SH ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Hi All, I just launched a site for a client that is database driven and uses an external style sheet site to control the site's design. I granted my client permission to update only the content using Contribute for certain interior pages, which won't effect the page's layout. Also, I must admit I'm growing rather weary of all the negative remarks about Dreamweaver. From my humble perspective I use Dreamweaver MX 2004 and find it to be an extremely robust and well crafted authoring tool. Dreamweaver produces fairly good XHTML, and has a feature to Clean Up XHTML, and coupled with HomeSite's code sweeper you can produce clean, valid markup. All in addition to using the W3C's Code Validator, and being able to apply changes in Dreamweaver's code view I just don't see the down side. I use TopStyle for my CSS, but I can't imagine the amount of time it would have taken to create some of my more complex sites by hand coding them especially considering some of the hard deadlines my customers have imposed. Respectfully yours, Mario S. Cisneros, President WebNet Design Studios, LLC. Hi Sam Whilsts not completely off-topic, this is relevant: It depends on the complexity of the CSS code for layout Macromedia's Contribute uses the same page-render engine as Dreamweaver, and we all know what that's like to work with ;) Well, provided your design doesn't use floats, different display: properties, and relative positioning, you should be fine (with the latest version, of course) As for pre-written templates? Contribute wasn't built with pre-designed templates in mind, moreather, so satisfy pre-built websites by professional developers (read: us). Developing a working template for Contribute is trial and error, unfortunatly... not only do you have the issues I've described above to contend with, but also browser incompatibilities too. Untill Macromedia get their act together about standards-compliant rendering (preferably without bugs too), then Contribute can only really be considered for use with tabular layouts. Regards -David -- Original Message -- From: Sam Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:15:19 - Anyone out there got any experience of adding a fully devised compliant template to Contribute to let the content owners manage their own pages ? Is it simply a case of defining the editable regions or should you build the site and then define the content that can be changed? Was planning on implementing along with: http://www.sammyco.co.uk/acttrwebpre/company.php ...would be interested to hear of any results good and bad - off list of you feel your reply isn't wide enough for everyone to be interested... Cheers SH ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
On 16/12/04 3:04 AM, david [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sam Whilsts not completely off-topic, this is relevant: It depends on the complexity of the CSS code for layout Macromedia's Contribute uses the same page-render engine as Dreamweaver, and we all know what that's like to work with ;) Actually, at a Macromedia seminar I attended last year, Bob Regan told us that the Contribute render engine was definitely NOT the same as Dreamweaver's (newer and more advanced in fact, as my own tests seem to indicate). He did say however that they were working towards integration and uniformity of the two products, and I got the impression that meant migrating Contribute's engine to Dreamweaver. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
On the Mac, Contribute uses the same (system-level) rendering engine as
Safari, which means you should not get any nasty surprises with the
layout.
Are you sure? Some time ago there was a deal between Macromedia and Opera:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020702.dml
(oh, and Apple: http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/30/opera)
Test it:
body {content: It's Opera;}
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
yes but your second link is re-adobe on apple and the first is only
for Macromedia products on the Mac also:
Opera and Macromedia will work together to develop and maintain an
application programming interface (API) for an embedded browser on the
Mac platform, enabling further technical collaboration between the two
companies in the future. Opera's core technology will be used as
default browsing technology in a number of Macromedia products on the
Mac platform and will give users the opportunity to test their Web
pages with the world's most standards-compliant browser.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:19:09 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the Mac, Contribute uses the same (system-level) rendering engine as
Safari, which means you should not get any nasty surprises with the
layout.
Are you sure? Some time ago there was a deal between Macromedia and Opera:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020702.dml
(oh, and Apple: http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/30/opera)
Test it:
body {content: It's Opera;}
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
Website Designer/Developer
www.nataliebuxton.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
I can say with 99% certainty the rendering is not IE nor Safari it is
Macromedia's own rendering engine. In C3 when you browse web pages you get
Safari or IE but when you click edit it flips to MM's own rendering engine.
C3 was an improved rendering engine over Dreamweaver MX 2004 and the upgrade
path continues.
C3 in edit mode renders pretty well, there are still a lot 'nice to have'
stuff in the bug base. Nothing is perfect though, and the Contribute team
has done a great job improving things.
The best way to get Contribute and Dreameaver to improve is for people from
places like here that care about standards to get involved on the Macromedia
Forums and bug them to let you into their beta programs. If there are more
voices asking for better standards support from rendering to code generation
the products will improve faster. Once thing I will say with absolute
certainty is that the Macromedia development teams listen to their
community. If their community is largely the 'how do I create a table?' type
then that is the product you get...
Jesse
On 12/15/04 6:19 PM, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the Mac, Contribute uses the same (system-level) rendering engine as
Safari, which means you should not get any nasty surprises with the
layout.
Are you sure? Some time ago there was a deal between Macromedia and Opera:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020702.dml
(oh, and Apple: http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/30/opera)
Test it:
body {content: It's Opera;}
--
Jesse Rodgers
Manager, Web Communications
Communications Public Affairs - University of Waterloo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 519.888.4567 ext. 3874
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Sort of: http://pole.uwaterloo.ca/cpadev/engtest/index.html I am currently working on a template that keeps to KISS so not to drive some folks insane but can be maintained in C3. Just about to hit it with JAWS and the ilk. I have had a couple students that rely on JAWS try it out and they have no complaints. Few things to add as yet and the search isn't implemented very well but C3 behaves. There are some limitations from inserting tables and images but the parts it leaves out are relatively minor. If you want to chat specifically about it send me an email. Regards, Jesse -- Jesse Rodgers Manager, Web Communications Communications Public Affairs - University of Waterloo [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 519.888.4567 ext. 3874 On 12/15/04 9:15 AM, Sam Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone out there got any experience of adding a fully devised compliant template to Contribute to let the content owners manage their own pages ? Is it simply a case of defining the editable regions or should you build the site and then define the content that can be changed? Was planning on implementing along with: http://www.sammyco.co.uk/acttrwebpre/company.php ...would be interested to hear of any results good and bad - off list of you feel your reply isn't wide enough for everyone to be interested... ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
On the Mac, Contribute uses the same (system-level) rendering engine as Safari, which means you should not get any nasty surprises with the layout. However, your client would have to have a Mac. :) -Hugh Todd On 16/12/2004, at 3:04 AM, david wrote: Macromedia's Contribute uses the same page-render engine as Dreamweaver, and we all know what that's like to work with ;) Well, provided your design doesn't use floats, different display: properties, and relative positioning, you should be fine (with the latest version, of course) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Kevin Futter wrote: Actually, at a Macromedia seminar I attended last year, Bob Regan told us that the Contribute render engine was definitely NOT the same as Dreamweaver's My bad, I was thinking of Contribute 2 Still... there isn't a single renderer out there that is 100% standards compliant, even Opera misses a few bits of CSS2 -David R ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Kornel,
Yes, I'm sure.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/contribute/productinfo/features/
static_tour/mac/
On the Mac, Contribute uses the same (system-level) rendering engine
as Safari, which means you should not get any nasty surprises with
the layout.
Are you sure? Some time ago there was a deal between Macromedia and
Opera:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020702.dml
(oh, and Apple: http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/30/opera)
Not Apple. Adobe.
Test it:
body {content: It's Opera;}
You what??
:) Hugh
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Kornel, Opera is the only browser I know that supports replacing elements with generated content and positioning of generated content. Safari supports this: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2003_12.html#004377 (see note 18). Dave Hyatt is the development leader on Safari. :) Hugh ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards Macromedia Contribute
Are you sure? Some time ago there was a deal between Macromedia and
Opera:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020702.dml
(oh, and Apple: http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/30/opera)
Not Apple. Adobe.
oops. It was supposed to be and Adobe.
Test it:
body {content: It's Opera;}
You what??
Opera is the only browser I know that supports replacing elements with
generated content and positioning of generated content.
BTW:
Opera misses few bits from CSS2, but has complete implementation of CSS2.1.
When I frist heard that I thought that its a paradox and it must be
untrue, but later I realized that CSS2.1 drops some quirks of CSS2 making
Opera fully compiliant.
Gecko still has very incomplete implementation of CSS2.1 Generated
Content, and even new display: properties aren't officially there yet.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
