Talk:Microsoft Expression Web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] expression web

Anybody else looking forward to this product?

Just want to know when it will be available?

  • CTP1 was released! You can play with it, it's pretty cool. atanamir 13:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


"provides support for integrating XML, CSS 2.1, ASP.NET 2.0, XHTML, JavaScript and other standard Web technologies"

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)

[edit] ASP.NET

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 124.185.228.187 (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 76.192.214.179 (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing babble

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)
While the statement about the advertisement is accurate, justifying it with "according to the official blurb" is somewhat unprofessional. You would not see "the official blurb" in Brittanica. I've changed it to "according to Microsoft."--199.125.45.10 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms in intro section

I have removed the following sentences from the intro paragraphs.

Ironically, Microsoft's Internet Explorer cannot render strict standards-based websites correctly. Also, ASP.NET is the only server-side supported language, an important standard such as PHP is not supported.

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)

[edit] Criticism section

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 76.192.214.179 (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)