Need help with Dreamweaver 4

[jwoolf09]

I need some help with Dreamweaver version 4. I have several webpages that I originally wrote in a different editor, then switched to Dreamweaver because I'm trying to learn how to use it. My problem is that with these webpages, when I try typing anything into the Layout window in Dreamweaver, instantly all my HTML code formatting vanishes, and the source code collapses into an unreadable mess. For example, this:

<tbody>
<!-- Individual dates --> <!-- First week - includes days from previous month -->
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>26</B></td>
<td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>27</B></td>
<td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>28</B></td>
<td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>29</B></td>
<td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>30</B></td>
<td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>31</B></td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><b>1</b><br>
Taiwan Acrobats<br>
8 p.m.<br>
$16/$24/$36 </td>
</tr>
---------------------------------------

becomes this:

-----------------------------------------
</thead> <tbody> <!-- Individual dates --> <!-- First week - includes days from previous month -->
<tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>26</B></td><td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>27</B></td><td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>28</B></td><td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>29</B></td><td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>30</B></td><td align="left" valign="top" style="background-image: url(back.jpg)"><b>31</B></td><td align="left" valign="top"><b>1</b><br>
Taiwan Acrobats<br> 8 p.m.<br> $16/$24/$36 </td></tr>
-----------------------------------------------

I've been all over the settings menus, and can't find anything that could be causing this. Other people I know who use DW have never seen anything like this. Several searches on the Web and DejaNews found exactly one other case of somebody complaining about this problem, and they never got a solution. So I know it isn't just me, but I don't know how to fix it.

Anyone here have any answers or insight to offer?

-- JSW

[Steve Rindsberg]

Wild guess: might the unmatched casing in the bold tags be confusing it?

Try a search and replace to change all the uppercase closing B tags to lowercase.

[Kelvyn]

DW4 is seriously old - and had a buggy layout window system, so bad that Macromedia used to issue instructions on how to disable/hide it and finally removed it (ISTR) in MX2004. You should just use the design and code windows.

DreamWeaver 8, the current version, is really very different than DW4 so I am trying to remember the problems!

[dthomsen8]

Any thought to starting over with CSS2?

[jwoolf09]

Kelvyn,

Just a quick terminology check: DW4's standard appearance has the code view above and a view of what the page will look like below. The "what it will look like" window is what I meant by "the layout view," although now that I check I see it's properly called the Design window. Which window were you talking about being buggy: the code view, layout view, or design view?

I have no money to spare right now, so I'm limited to using what software I already have, or free downloads. Is there any chance of finding a more recent version of DW, or should I just toss DW4 and use other editors (like Arachnophilia, which I rather like) until I can afford a current copy?

-- JSW

[ktinkel]

Is there any chance of finding a more recent version of DW, or should I just toss DW4 and use other editors (like Arachnophilia, which I rather like) until I can afford a current copy?Macromedia lets you download a 30-day trial version (http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/?promoid=BINR) of the current version of Dreamweaver, which is 8.

The trouble with that, though, is that if you like it and grow to depend on it, then you will need to come up with the cash to pay for the upgrade from version 4!

[Kelvyn]

Which window were you talking about being buggy: the code view, layout view, or design view?

Tha layout view was known to cause corruption and loss of formatting of the HTML code. You may find that your version has a menu item to "hide" the layout window. I seem to remember that it used some Microsoft IE code for the layout display.....

DW 4 is a powerful editor, especially in the UltraDev form, which was the version I used to use. It was, however, usually used in conjunction with HomeSite, as the code editor lacks the assistive features that HomeSite posesses - the code editor of DW has steadily improved with each new version. There was a free version of Homesite on the DW4/Ultradev cds.

[Ian Petersen]

I'd certainly recommend dumping Dreamweaver, especially such an old version. There are quite a few free or cheap HTML editors around if you search including Arachnophilia which, as far as I remember is a fine editor. HTML Kit is quite popular as well. But, as Kelvyn suggests, why not just use Homesite which is bundled with DW?

I'm a big fan of TopStyle, written by the same chap who wrote Homesite. But that is not a freeware app, although certainly not expensive.

[George]

Did you try Edit, Preferences, Code ReWriting, Never Rewrite Code. I think that will do it.

Regards,

George

[George]

I'd certainly recommend dumping Dreamweaver, especially such an old version. There are quite a few free or cheap HTML editors around if you search including Arachnophilia which, as far as I remember is a fine editor. HTML Kit is quite popular as well. But, as Kelvyn suggests, why not just use Homesite which is bundled with DW?

I'm a big fan of TopStyle, written by the same chap who wrote Homesite. But that is not a freeware app, although certainly not expensive.

Isn't TopStyle the CSS part of HomeSite?? Perhaps, you mean something else. If the same guy has a new version, I sure would like to check it out, but I just don't see how HomeSite can be improved.

Regards,

George

[Kelvyn]

George

Nick Bradbury has produced TopStyle Pro (http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/index.asp) which is a CSS and XHTML editor. It is TopStyle Lite, a basic CSS editor only which has been bundled with Homesite.

[George]

George

Nick Bradbury has produced TopStyle Pro (http://www.bradsoft.com/topstyle/index.asp) which is a CSS and XHTML editor. It is TopStyle Lite, a basic CSS editor only which has been bundled with Homesite.

OK, now I see, thank you. What do you think of TopStyle Pro?? If it's better than HomeSite and TopStyle Light, it's got to be really neat. But, for someone like me, who only wants to do basic web pages, is it something I would buy and not use any of the features that HomeSite and TopStyle Light doesn't have??? I mean I don't think I should pass up something better than HomeSite, but if I wouldn't use the other features, why spend the money??

Thanks for your opinion in advance.

Regards,

George

[Kelvyn]

George, unless you design a lot of sites and need the advanced CSS facilities in TopStyle Pro then it is not worth the money. Personally I am so familiar with HomeSite that I find the XHTML editor of TopStyle Pro not so easy to use.

There used to be a 30 day TS Pro version for those who wanted to test it out. I do not know if it is available now.

[jwoolf09]

[[ I'd certainly recommend dumping Dreamweaver, especially such an old version. There are quite a few free or cheap HTML editors around if you search including Arachnophilia which, as far as I remember is a fine editor. HTML Kit is quite popular as well. But, as Kelvyn suggests, why not just use Homesite which is bundled with DW? ]]

As a matter of fact, I have Arachnophilia version 4, and like it a lot. In some ways I prefer it over later versions of Arachnophilia. I was trying to use DW4 because DW is the editor that is most often mentioned in "web developer" job ads, and that's the kind of job I'm looking for. However, from what you say I shouldn't bother -- DW has changed so much that trying to learn it that way would be counterproductive. Is that more or less right?

-- JSW

[Ian Petersen]

What do you think of TopStyle Pro?Put it this way: I have both Homesite and TopStyle Pro. I was a huge fan of Homesite until I got TopStyle, but I don't think I've used it since. Homesite was developed when visual markup ruled the world. You needed a powerful HTML editor to keep track of deeply nested tables and thousands of font-tags. Thankfully, all that is ancient history now CSS-based workflows are the norm. All the complexity is in the CSS files coupled with perhaps JS and Flash. The HTML itself is as simple as kan be. I've found TopStyle's HTML features to be plenty powerful for modern development, and its CSS features essential.

[Ian Petersen]

The important thing is to understand the underlying technologies HTML, CSS, JS etc. as well as design issues. These things are independent of any particular development environment. If you are only able to make a webpage using version X of program Y then you're not going to be very interesting to any potential employer. So I'd say try as many different apps as you can and find the tools that suit your way of working, but always make sure you're able to build a site using only Notepad if necessary.

[Kelvyn]

I was trying to use DW4 because DW is the editor that is most often mentioned in "web developer" job ads, and that's the kind of job I'm looking for.

DreamWeaver has become the leading tool for professional web development because it is so powerful, not just for XHTML (and now CSS) but also because of its PHP, cf and .asp editing ability and interaction with a development server. To use it, though you must have a good understanding of XHTML and CSS. Most recent job ads for web developers that I have seen fall into two camps - .NET and MS software or DW, PHP, MySQL and Flash.

You should certainly play with DW4 to get an idea of the way it does things, but DW8 is a very much more powerful program, with enhanced CSS capability. When you are sure you have the time available to try it properly, download the 30 day trial of DW8. I use DWMX2004 routinely, but am trialing DW8 - only a couple of days left to make my mind up whether to buy it or not. I'll be posting a short review here of my experiences with this very nice piece of software!

[George]

Thank you.

While we're talking software comparisons, I'd like to ask a question about PSP v. Fireworks. I took a look at Fireworks, but then used PSP as it seemed more intuitive and I wanted my graphic out of the way fast.

It seems graphics are the key to sharp web page design; however, quite frankly, I'm tired of communication that puts appearance over quality of message. That's great for sales, but I don't want to look like a salesman in putting out an informational site. That's gets too shallow too fast, and it becomes just disgusting. But, I guess a news site would be different, and there must be other exceptions. So, I'm afraid of getting into graphics too much, but I have to be careful not to get left behind, because I didn't get into graphics enough. I even added a second graphic to my site, that appears in the banner of the articles. Still, I want an emphasis on the message, which can be enhanced by graphics, but very often they are actually just a distraction.

So, does Fireworks have an advantage over PSP and would it apply to someone who just does basic designs?? I still look over at the books I have on Fireworks and software tutorials and wonder. Or is there another graphics program I should consider, if not for design enhancement, to maintain basic knowledge of potential practice??

Regards,

George

[Ian Petersen]

I've never used PSP or Fireworks, so can't help you there. In fact I have no idea what the latter even does ...

As to being 'into' graphics or not - some jobs require heavy use of graphics, some don't. The trick is knowing which is which. <g>

Much 'design' nowadays is what I would call 'styling' - and often calls for a lot of graphical baggage - generally because there is little textual content. If you are plagued by that kind of job you need to be 'into' graphics whether you like it or not.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Sweet ... 3.11 is free if you've already purchased 3.10

[Kelvyn]

does Fireworks have an advantage over PSP and would it apply to someone who just does basic designs?

George, Fireworks is not just a graphics editor; it has additional features, such the ability to create dynamicic (JavaScript) rollover menu bars and other animations. I tried it out in its MX2004 version and, although it is specifically designed for producing web graphics, as far as I could see provided no extra features that were important to me. So I have stuck with Paint Shop Pro for most of my graphics work, although I prefer to use PhotoShop for dealing with digital photographs for printing.

[George]

Thanks again, Kelvyn. I'm learning just a little bit at a time, but it works.

George