Talk:Microsoft Expression Web
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Microsoft||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
my page talk about fashion and i chose this tobic becaes ilove fashion so much wowwwwwww page we have many fashion clothes like we have jeans and some bitful shirts but i love to waer short over it t-shirts that was the fashion this year in summer
Just How Standards Compliant Is It?
Just how standards compliant is it? After the disaster that was FrontPage, I'm a bit skeptical. Can anybody point to a site that was created with it?
If it actually is standards-compliant, Microsoft ought to have the Expression Web team working on IE 8 so I can stop having recurring nightmares about jumping links and invalid box models…
Wulf 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
since when is ASP.NET a standard web technology?
This is an Internet Explorer Standards Compliant tool. I just recently started on a project where the other designer used this tool to create the initial design. She claimed it was Standards Compliant but Firefox, Safari, and Opera did not display the site properly. I'm certain this is yet another loaded Microsoft product. marnues (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- i was on their product page. the page is orrible in opera9.5 beta 2 --> changing the doctype to something not standard solfes the problems :rolleyes: mabdul 0=* 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It is and it isn't, however a lot of websites use it. Although I don't use it, it probably isn't such a bad technology after all. Don't judge a book by its cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
- flat out it is not a standard, I am not calling it bad it is uniform due to it is produced by one company it just is not a standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else thing that "Expression Web is focused on the needs of professional Web designers seeking to build high-quality, standards-based Web sites for companies" sound more like an advert than an encyclopaedia? Simxp 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing reads like an ad. ASP.Net is NOT a standard technology, it is Microsoft proprietary! Complete re-write needed. --Dyefade 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Although I'm the first always to point at Microsoft's faults there is such a thing as a de facto standard. ASP is second only to PHP and is taught officially in more places, as well as being a requirement for Web development in a lot of corporations so, as much as it pains us to admit it, it is a standard. Just not an open one. Remember, we don't like 'em but we can't let that cloud our judgement. Oracle is also closed and it's a standard. eduo (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms in intro section
I have removed the following sentences from the intro paragraphs.
While these criticisms may or may not be valid, I do not believe that they belong in the intro paragraph. (Especially the first sentence, which is nothing more than a cheap shot at IE.) Viltris 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about Internet Explorer's standards compliancy criticism. Criticism against Internet Explorer certainly does not belong in the Expression Web article. Viltris 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the criticism section. It feels like WP:NOR to me.
ASP.NET is as much a "standard" as PHP. Each one is the predominant dynamic server technology on their respective platforms (Windows/.NET or Unix/PHP.)
- both are commonly used and are capable scripting languages but ASP.NET is not a standard (In the sense of ANSI C or ISO/IEC 23360 are standards, approved by a national or international standards body), it is however uniform in syntax due to it only has one company that has developed it. The argument that ASP.NET is as standard as PHP is a little ironic in I do not believe that it has gone through a standardization process with any national or international standards body either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It is one thing to criticize a proprietary platform for being proprietary. Such criticism belongs in the article on ASP.NET if it belongs on Wikipedia at all. It is a completely different matter to criticize a product for only doing what it was intended to do--create web pages for the Microsoft .NET platform. As such, I don't think "ASP.NET is the only server-side supported language in Expression Web; an important standard such as PHP is not supported." is an appropriate section in this article. Jonathan Auer 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Marketing yadda yadda again
I removed sentences "Expression Web is targeted toward professional website designers." - with a product like this one, the target group is quite obvious. The word 'proffessional' is, on the other hand, a quite obvious marketing move with no encyclopaedic significance whatsoever.
"Microsoft claims that Expression Web's rendering engine currently provides the most accurate standards-compliant rendering on the market, especially CSS rendering." - what else would Microsoft claim? "We've made a lame rendering engine"? If there are results of some independent tests available, add a link to those. But referencing Microsoft's product page for a boasting claim like that is ... naive at best.
wlad 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Expression Web is a WYSIWYG Editor
FleetCommand asked me to start a discussion on whether Expression Web is a WYSIWYG editor. I removed the passage FleetCommand wrote claiming it is not one. I found hundreds of published sources claiming that it is a WYSIWYG editor: . In contrast, the only source FleetCommand can find is a posting in a forum by someone named "Bill Pearson." If I were to resort to using web sites as sources, too, I would find thousands that say it is a WYSIWYG editor: . It took me a few seconds to find that information. I have a feeling FleetCommand spent longer than that digging up that posting in that forum, though.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
HTML 5 Outlook
With EW Version 4 getting long in the tooth (now 19 months old) and HTML 5 emerging is there any reliable outlook on a next version with increased HTML support? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)