hi, is anyone running expression web and publishing to the server? I cant get expression web to publish... bellow is the error message I get when I try to publish the “catalogue” folder... anyone know what's going on? The error from Expression Web says: " Failed to change directory to Catalogue: Failed to change directory (550)." any help is appreciated. thanks, -Chris
If anyone is interested, it appears Google has released a new Search Engine Optimization Starter Guidel You can download it from their site <http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization-starter-guide.pdf>Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide Pat
>is anyone running expression web and publishing to the server? I >cant get expression web to publish... >bellow is the error message I get when I try to publish the >"catalogue" folder... anyone know what's going on? > >The error from Expression Web says: " Failed to change directory to >Catalogue: Failed to change directory (550)." > >any help is appreciated. ============ Yes, I use EW to publish to the rootsweb servers. You can find instructions here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gearyfamily/expression-web/publishing-with-ew.html use the links if you have another version of EW. Make sure you select passive ftp Pat ---------- Pat Geary, Microsoft MVP - Expression Web We discuss FrontPage and Expression Web http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gearyfamily/frontpage/ http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gearyfamily/expression-web/ http://www.expression-web-tutorials.com/ Migrating from FrontPage to Expression Web EBook Revised to include EW 3.0 http://frontpage-to-expression.com/
Makes good sense Jim I will try that - no fonts just serif etc Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-03-01 5:04 PM, Jim Loudon wrote: > CSSTools looks to be Windows-centric. Helvetica is a common Mac font not > typically installed in Windows systems. It would appear CSSTools > referenced the local PC and couldn't locate a Helvetica font file. > > My take on fonts in general is to declare either serif or sans-serif and > let the font default to whatever is defined in the local browser settings. > User-defined browser settings are there for a reason and I see no cause to > override them (this also plays into accessibility concerns). Heresy, I > know. > > If a web page layout absolutely must conform to a pixel-by-pixel > rendering, use a graphic instead. > > jim
On 1/03/2011 5:19 p.m., Ron Lankshear wrote: > Thanks Barry > Looks sound > > And it says > > Helvetica is the granddaddy here, but Arial is more common on modern > OS's. > > I am trying to understand why the CSSTool says Helvetica must be a > spelling error > I've pasted the word in but that error still appears???? > > Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) > try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ ---------------------------------------- Ron, Do you know if the font is in your computer? The easy way to test for it is to create a short page, e.g. <html> <meta charset="utf-8"> <p style="font-family:helvetica, 'comic sans ms'; font-size:1em;"> The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog</p> Copy & paste into text editor and open in browser. If helvetica is there, you will know - it doesn't look anything like 'comic sans ms'. Arial is a good substitute. Possibly CSSTool has not been taught about it, as these days it is more a printers font and not generally available as freeware. Barry
Ron, A worthwhile page to read on safe web fonts is here:- http://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/fonts.html Barry On 1/03/2011 4:11 p.m., Ron Lankshear wrote: > Well I am trying the CSSTool > This is line in my CSS which I think I just picked > up with a template > body { > font-family: Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; > > CSSTool says > body: Unknown font name ( helvetica) possible > spellings error > > This is confusing > > anyhow if it thinks that is a problem I have now > changed to > > font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif,Serif; > > It did some up a few real valid syntax problems > which I've fixed > > Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) > try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/
On 2011-03-01 3:37 PM, Barry Carlson wrote: > The easy way to test for it is to create a short > page, e.g. > > <html> > <meta charset="utf-8"> > <p style="font-family:helvetica, 'comic sans > ms'; font-size:1em;"> > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog</p> > > Copy & paste into text editor and open in > browser. If helvetica is there, you will know - > it doesn't look anything like 'comic sans ms'. > Arial is a good substitute. > > Possibly CSSTool has not been taught about it, > as these days it is more a printers font and not > generally available as freeware. > > Barry Yes I seem to have - well a different result to comic sans ms by itself I take your comment about printers font as a good reason Anyhow of what I had I think it was Tahoma that I liked the look of - or of which I liked the look my final font-family: Tahoma, Times New Roman, Arial, sans-serif,Serif; Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/
Thanks Barry Looks sound And it says Helvetica is the granddaddy here, but Arial is more common on modern OS's. I am trying to understand why the CSSTool says Helvetica must be a spelling error I've pasted the word in but that error still appears???? Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-03-01 2:41 PM, Barry Carlson wrote: > Ron, > > A worthwhile page to read on safe web fonts is here:- > > http://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/fonts.html > > Barry
Well I am trying the CSSTool This is line in my CSS which I think I just picked up with a template body { font-family: Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; CSSTool says body: Unknown font name ( helvetica) possible spellings error This is confusing anyhow if it thinks that is a problem I have now changed to font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif,Serif; It did some up a few real valid syntax problems which I've fixed Ron Lankshear -Sydney NSW (from London-Shepherds Bush/Chiswick) try my links http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/ On 2011-03-01 3:35 AM, Pat Geary wrote: > Top Style Lite which is free can be integrated with FP2003 to act as > the style editor. You can download it fromhttp://topstyle.en.softonic.com/ > > Another one I found the other day which is also free is Free CSS > Toolbox - Free CSS Validator, CSS Formatter, CSS Compressor > http://www.blumentals.net/csstool/ > > I have NOT had the time to try it out as yet but it looks promising.
At 10:31 AM 3/1/2011, okies_kid@yahoo.com wrote: >I always feel I came in in the middle of a conversation! >How is that supposed to help? =============== Since you deleted the entire message with the exception of your response, not sure which of the many posts you are referring too. The subscribers to this list come from all skill levels - very beginner to very skilled and somewhere in between. If instructions seem too complicated, ask for more info or clarification and someone in the group will be happy to expand. Pat G
Bonjour, I'm a beginner with regard to setting up a web page, so please bear with me. I have lots of Oregon Trail research which I gathered in preparation for my just-released book on the emigration of 1851 and want to post some of it on my genealogy website http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/e/l/Albert-E-Belanger/index.htm l . I was able to translate into .html one particular document "Abbreviations Used in the O.T. Files" but when it went from .doc to .html it got a little reformatted. I can't find a way to fix the formatting changes. So my question simply is : how does one edit an .html document? Your humble servant &c., &c., Albert Albert Edward Belanger 128 Middle Road Brentwood, NH 03833 Researching Oregon Trail skipandsandy@comcast.net http://www.pdbookstore.com/comfiles/pages/AlbertEdwardBelanger.shtml http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/e/l/Albert-E-Belanger/index.htm l http://www.oregonpioneers.com/ortrail.htm
I always feel I came in in the middle of a conversation! How is that supposed to help? H Isaacs
At 10:11 PM 2/28/2011, Ron Lankshear wrote: >anyhow if it thinks that is a problem I have now changed to > >font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif,Serif; =========== A few more resources: http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/fonts http://www.w3schools.com/CSS/pr_font_font-family.asp http://www.devlounge.net/design/better-font-families-in-css http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/09/22/complete-guide-to-css-font-stacks/ If I want to use what I call a fancy font especially for the site name, I create a transparent gif image and use it either as a background or inserted over a background image. Example: http://www.genealogy-web-creations.com/css-layouts/site4/images/our-family-logo-blue.gif Pat
Thanks for the links. Sounds simple enough. Might be worth a try? Web pages should separate content from appearance. As a developer this means that the information in your web site should go into your HTML files, but HTML files should not contain information about how that information is displayed. And you've probably guessed by now that information about how the pages should appear goes into CSS files. Some of the discussion of what people are trying to acomplish is a bit ridiculous. I have enough work and headaches with research, not glitz.
I'll come to Billie's defense here, at least in part. I am quite competent in HTML and CSS (check out my FreePages website) and there are some things that are easier and more intuitively expressed in HTML. I'm thinking especially of tables for solving certain layout problems. -R. On 2011-02-28 13:10, Billie Walsh wrote: > All right. I stand defeated. I don't know if I will unsubscribe, but I > will hence forth and forever refrain from posting anything to the list. > It appears that alternate views are not welcome. > > On 02/28/2011 11:57 AM, lrlaskey wrote: >> Billie, >> >> I have to speak to this. I know I am preaching to the choir for some >> listers but for those not using or understanding style sheets, comparing >> a few characters of html styles in a line of html code to that of a >> style sheet is like comparing apples to oranges. >> >> There is no comparison when one considers the savings in time, file >> size, errors, site control, download time, ability to include other >> styles based on whether mobile, desktop, print and so on and so on. It >> must be experienced to be understood. >> >> And, the flexibililty will continue to improve in the future as hand >> held devices and their use increases. This is especially true in lesser >> developed countries where desk top computer use is low but hand held is >> increasing. >> >> They are two different things. Each has it's place but the style sheet >> is superior unless a website is relying entirely on browser styles. I >> cannot recommend enough that anyone who has a website should learn a >> minimun of css to at least understand how read and find styles. >> Technology is improving and will pass webmasters by unless they stay on >> top. >> >> Lorrie >> >> On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: >>> This is getting blown all out of proportion. >>> >>> I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. >>> >>> I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I >>> have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have >>> some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my >>> pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web >>> page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to >>> know more about how it works to use it. >>> >>> All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. >>> >> On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: >>> This is getting blown all out of proportion. >>> >>> I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. >>> >>> I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I >>> have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have >>> some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my >>> pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web >>> page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to >>> know more about how it works to use it. >>> >>> All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. -- Regards, Rod Dav4is / P.O. Box 118 / Hyde Park, NY 12538 / USA Little Nine Partners Historical Society Trustee, Webmaster, Lifetime Member http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nylnphs/ Personal website: Genealogy, et Cetera: http://freepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~dav4is/
On 02/28/11 14:30, lrlaskey wrote: Billie and all, I must apologize for this message being sent. As you can tell, it was never finished. Please ignore it. Lorrie > Billie, > > Voicing opinions is healthy and good for everyone. Sometimes > something learned and everyone's voice is heard. My opinion is just > that, mine. It just so happen that you chose a subject that as you > stated in an earlier message, "I have been working on learning more > about CSS/style elements when I have some spare time." > > On 02/28/11 12:10, Billie Walsh wrote: >> All right. I stand defeated. I don't know if I will unsubscribe, but I >> will hence forth and forever refrain from posting anything to the list. >> It appears that alternate views are not welcome. >> >> On 02/28/2011 11:57 AM, lrlaskey wrote: >>> Billie, >>> >>> I have to speak to this. I know I am preaching to the choir for some >>> listers but for those not using or understanding style sheets, comparing >>> a few characters of html styles in a line of html code to that of a >>> style sheet is like comparing apples to oranges. >>> >>> There is no comparison when one considers the savings in time, file >>> size, errors, site control, download time, ability to include other >>> styles based on whether mobile, desktop, print and so on and so on. It >>> must be experienced to be understood. >>> >>> And, the flexibililty will continue to improve in the future as hand >>> held devices and their use increases. This is especially true in lesser >>> developed countries where desk top computer use is low but hand held is >>> increasing. >>> >>> They are two different things. Each has it's place but the style sheet >>> is superior unless a website is relying entirely on browser styles. I >>> cannot recommend enough that anyone who has a website should learn a >>> minimun of css to at least understand how read and find styles. >>> Technology is improving and will pass webmasters by unless they stay on >>> top. >>> >>> Lorrie >>> >>> On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: >>>> This is getting blown all out of proportion. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. >>>> >>>> I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I >>>> have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have >>>> some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my >>>> pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web >>>> page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to >>>> know more about how it works to use it. >>>> >>>> All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. >>>> >>> On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: >>>> This is getting blown all out of proportion. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. >>>> >>>> I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I >>>> have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have >>>> some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my >>>> pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web >>>> page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to >>>> know more about how it works to use it. >>>> >>>> All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. >>>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toFREEPAGES-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>>
At 01:10 PM 2/28/2011, Billie Walsh wrote: >All right. I stand defeated. I don't know if I will unsubscribe, but I >will hence forth and forever refrain from posting anything to the list. >It appears that alternate views are not welcome. Billie, You are free to express your opinion, just as others are free to express theirs. Discussing divergent opinions is how we all learn. Pat Asher List Admin
All right. I stand defeated. I don't know if I will unsubscribe, but I will hence forth and forever refrain from posting anything to the list. It appears that alternate views are not welcome. On 02/28/2011 11:57 AM, lrlaskey wrote: > Billie, > > I have to speak to this. I know I am preaching to the choir for some > listers but for those not using or understanding style sheets, comparing > a few characters of html styles in a line of html code to that of a > style sheet is like comparing apples to oranges. > > There is no comparison when one considers the savings in time, file > size, errors, site control, download time, ability to include other > styles based on whether mobile, desktop, print and so on and so on. It > must be experienced to be understood. > > And, the flexibililty will continue to improve in the future as hand > held devices and their use increases. This is especially true in lesser > developed countries where desk top computer use is low but hand held is > increasing. > > They are two different things. Each has it's place but the style sheet > is superior unless a website is relying entirely on browser styles. I > cannot recommend enough that anyone who has a website should learn a > minimun of css to at least understand how read and find styles. > Technology is improving and will pass webmasters by unless they stay on > top. > > Lorrie > > On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: >> This is getting blown all out of proportion. >> >> I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. >> >> I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I >> have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have >> some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my >> pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web >> page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to >> know more about how it works to use it. >> >> All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. >> > > On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: >> This is getting blown all out of proportion. >> >> I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. >> >> I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I >> have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have >> some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my >> pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web >> page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to >> know more about how it works to use it. >> >> All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FREEPAGES-HELP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- "A good moral character is the first essential in a man." George Washington _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._
Billie, I have to speak to this. I know I am preaching to the choir for some listers but for those not using or understanding style sheets, comparing a few characters of html styles in a line of html code to that of a style sheet is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparison when one considers the savings in time, file size, errors, site control, download time, ability to include other styles based on whether mobile, desktop, print and so on and so on. It must be experienced to be understood. And, the flexibililty will continue to improve in the future as hand held devices and their use increases. This is especially true in lesser developed countries where desk top computer use is low but hand held is increasing. They are two different things. Each has it's place but the style sheet is superior unless a website is relying entirely on browser styles. I cannot recommend enough that anyone who has a website should learn a minimun of css to at least understand how read and find styles. Technology is improving and will pass webmasters by unless they stay on top. Lorrie On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: > This is getting blown all out of proportion. > > I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. > > I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I > have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have > some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my > pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web > page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to > know more about how it works to use it. > > All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. > On 02/28/11 10:58, Billie Walsh wrote: > This is getting blown all out of proportion. > > I'm not saying that style elements and CSS shouldn't be used. > > I have a video series on CSS and Style elements that I picked up. And I > have been working on learning more about CSS/style elements when I have > some spare time. I have incorporated some style elements into some of my > pages to do things you just can't do with standard HTML tags. The web > page editor that I use has a built in style/CSS editor but you have to > know more about how it works to use it. > > All I'm saying is that for some things there is a simple HTML way to do it. >
At 11:22 AM 2/28/2011, Sheri Bush wrote: >I use a little free program called TopStyle which is wonderful as it >helps you in the beginning to learn what each element does. Top Style Lite which is free can be integrated with FP2003 to act as the style editor. You can download it from http://topstyle.en.softonic.com/ Another one I found the other day which is also free is Free CSS Toolbox - Free CSS Validator, CSS Formatter, CSS Compressor http://www.blumentals.net/csstool/ I have NOT had the time to try it out as yet but it looks promising. Pat