Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software The Internet

Open Source Alternative to Dreamweaver's .LBI? 69

Posted by Cliff from the preventing-the-lock-in dept.
An anonymous reader asks: "I have recently started using Dreamweaver to manage one of many websites that I work on. One feature that I am growing to love is the ability to use Dreamweaver library files (.LBI). What are Slashdot readers' opinions on this format? Is there something better (read: free and standards-compliant)? I also would like to find something I could use on an open-source platform so that I won't be locked in to using Dreamweaver. What do you use for your sites?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Alternative to Dreamweaver's .LBI? More

Open Source Alternative to Dreamweaver's .LBI?

Comments Filter:

  • Dreamweaver is a good fit (Score:3, Informative)

    by trompete ( 651953 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @08:26PM (#8923946) Homepage Journal
    I have a tool for each part of the process. For design, I use FrontPage, for development AND design, I use Dreamweaver. For straight-up development, I use PHPEdit [phpedit.com]. Just use the right tool for the right job.

    • Re:Dreamweaver is a good fit (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @09:04PM (#8924216)
      > For design, I use FrontPage, ...
      > Just use the right tool for the right job.

      Yikes.

    • Ouch (Score:2)

      by sahrss ( 565657 )

      For design, I use FrontPage,
      I feel sorry for your websites...and your clients, if you still have any. :-P
      • Hey. I just use it for HTML 4 table layout. The CSS stuff is done with Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver pisses me off when it comes to tables.
        • Dreamweaver doesnt piss me off with tables..... text view tag completion works wonders, tab in to keep code sorted and clean, no problems. why dont you like it? WYSIWYG not quite working right?? Learn the code muh brotha!

    • Re:Dreamweaver is a good fit (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "For design, I use FrontPage..."

      <div>
      <table border="0" bgcolor=#ffffff>
      <tr>
      <td>
      <font face="Arial" size="10">
      <blockquote>
      <div>I</div><div>use</d i v><div>Frontpage</div><div >myself,</div>
      <div>and</div><div>have</div><div> had</div><div>gr eat</div><div>results.</div>
      </blockquote>
      </fon t>
      </td>
      </tr>
      </table>
      </div>

  • 3 things (Score:4, Informative)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @08:31PM (#8923989) Homepage Journal
    I use 3 things to make websites. Well, technically four, but really 3. First I use nedit. It's a text editor, my text editor of choice. Any text editor will do. Second I use nvu. nvu is like Mozilla Composer, but it has been "Firefoxized". Third I use firefox itself, to view the pages. The technical fourth thing is a firefox extension that lest me edit css live to make sure its perfect. Any real self respecting geek writes the html and css in the raw. It's the only way.

    • Re:3 things (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pbox ( 146337 )
      Correction: "Any real self respecting geek with a loth of time on her/his/its hands managing the egosite or at most a few more sites writes the html and css in the raw."

      • 3 things-Frameworks. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Real websites use frameworks and CMS, and only use toys like dreamweaver for playing "what if".

      • Re:3 things (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MadChicken ( 36468 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @10:05PM (#8924699) Homepage Journal
        Correction: "Any web developer worth his salt writes raw HTML and CSS"

        CSS is the only way to keep your sanity when you're writing a lot of pages. And the best way to keep pages clean and maintainable is to do it in a plain text editor. (A smart one though, like jEdit)

        Or do you have too much time on your hands to put accursed FONT tags around every morsel of the web page?

        And yes, I do this professionally.

        P.S. ...I couldn't say "in the raw" with a straight face. And may Eric forgive me for using bold tags.
      • If you wrote the HTML *properly*, you could generally use templates or something similar to generate the rest of the site. "But my giant site has an inconsistent layout that doesn't lend itself to templating." Well, that site probably creates a poor user experience, and probably could benefit from a redesign.

        BTW, not only do I maintain some very large sites using only gvim, but I also happen to work for a web development company wherin all of the dedicated site coders work in text editors. Somehow, we m

    • Re:3 things (Score:1, Funny)

      by xoran99 ( 745620 )
      Any real self respecting geek writes the html and css in the raw.

      WR0NGZ0R3D!!! a|\|y 31337 h4x04 r3li$h3s the chance to use fr0ntp4ge and put lots of c4ap in h1s c0d3 &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp...

    • Re:3 things (Score:5, Interesting)

      by itsari ( 703841 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @08:48PM (#8924115) Homepage

      Any real self respecting geek writes the html and css in the raw. It's the only way.

      Not only that, but it makes for better pages. The code is not bloated, and the layout is more optimized. Hand-coding websites also gives you a chance to find new ways of doing things instead of the same old tricks.

      My design process includes Fireworks, also by Macromedia. My first step is drawing the page layout with all the images and menus. It's the easiest way to play around and find what looks just right. My next step is re-creating the page using minimal images, css, and xhtml. After it looks like the original images, I optimize the code and make sure the layout works in ALL browsers. I might also add in a step that includes javascript or server-side code if its necessary. This design process has served me very well.

      As for the question, I've used Dreamweaver, but never liked the extra features. I use it as a file manager and syntax highlighter when I'm on Windows, that about all (except FTP). I find the best way to manage your site is to have it manageable by design. Descriptive file names, good directory structure, and organization. That way you wont be locked into any specific solution.

    • what's that firefox extension to edit css like that?

      e.

    • I'm not thick, really, but I can't figure out how to use the CSS Editor Tool in Nvu, and I've struggled with it for hours, and Googled for instructions.

      Would you mind providing a little guidance, or at least point me towards some relevant links?

      Your help would me much appreciated.

      Cheers!
    • Any real self respecting geek writes the html and css in the raw.

      /ME pictures the typical geek doing this, then hurriedly exits stage left... whimpering...

    • i use Quanta [sourceforge.net] striaght through. My hat really has to go off to the development team, im yet to find a situation where its best to use a wysiwyg thingy, most of the time its what you dont see that really worries me...

      last time i used dreamweaver i spent more time arguing with the interface than actually being productive, similar to my brief experience with windows xp and its associated programs...

  • Maybe we could tell you about alternatives if you'd detail exactly what it is that LBI files do. Saying that it's a library file doesn't mean much. Does that mean it's a DLL? What exactly is the problem that you are trying to solve?

    • Re:Can you be any more vague? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cloudless.net ( 629916 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @08:49PM (#8924118) Homepage
      Dreamweaver LBI are pieces of HTML code that can be shared among multiple web pages. It has similar effect as SSI but the code insertion is done on the client side before uploading to the web server.
      • Why not just use PHP(or perl or etc) and make files?

        The PHP has include capabilities and other processing ability. The make files should be able to run PHP and generate the resultant pages.

        • Two (possible) reasons:

          • Might not have access to a PHP server, or sufficient access to the server to install PHP (or similar)
          • There's a (admittedly minor) performance hit using server-side includes; if you can pre-generate the HTML in advance (which effectively is what Dreamweaver does with library items) you avoid this.

          I've got to admit though, my first thought was "server side includes".

          • Maybe I wasn't clear. You can install PHP on your personal machine and use make files to run it on the .php files giving you .html files that have the content generated at make time instead of at download time. That sounds like all the lbi files do anyway.

            • I just recently did this when my brother asked for a site, he was running for president of a vasrity association, I used a basic bluerobot.com 3 column css design and did the whole thing in raw html and css. It drove me nuts when he requested extra pages and I had to modify every page's navigation bar. What I did was install php cg in my WinXP machine and use simple includes, in the form

              htmlcode blah blah blah

              <?php
              require(navbar.inc.php);
              ?>
              bl ah blah blah

              If you want your site to be XHTML you wil

              • Re:Can you be any more vague? (Score:1, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Coward

                If you want your site to be XHTML you will have to disable the short tags in the php.ini configuration file (I don'remember exactly how at the moment), otherwise the php parser will go nut with the xml tags.

                Nope. The only thing PHP doesn't like about XHTML is processing instructions and the XML prolog. If you include either of these in an XHTML page, you aren't following Appendix C of XHTML 1.0 and you are not allowed to serve it as text/html. If you don't serve it as text/html, Internet Explorer won

  • Server-side Includes (Score:5, Informative)

    by cloudless.net ( 629916 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @08:39PM (#8924050) Homepage
    Just use SSI if your web server supports it (most do). No need to "update all pages" like you do with LBI.

  • LIB = HTML; It's the Executable (Score:5, Informative)

    by AnamanFan ( 314677 ) <anamanfan&everythingafter,net> on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @09:12PM (#8924284) Homepage
    The LIB format isn't really proprietary. In short, it's your HTML page with a different file extension and a few additional HTML comment blocks. The only reason it's .lib is so you don't treat it as a HTML page since it's not a complete HTML page.

    The LIB file is text that's copy and pasted into the parent document. That is, if you were to delete the LIB file, you still have all the code in the parent files. What Dreamweaver does with the LIB files is recognize that any code changed within the LIB file must be changed in the parent files that use that code. However, this is the Dreamweaver executable that's detecting and making the changes. This isn't a server technology. This isn't anything special in the files (outside of standard HTML comment blocks), just how your copy of Dreamweaver is using a form of find/replace function on your site.

    As to open-source alternatives, you may have read previously about OSS lack of usability. This is why there aren't many good OSS editors out there. Oh there are editors, but they are mostly glorified text editors and some will display HTML pages with a WYSIWYG interface. But what makes Dreamweaver special are the advanced find/replace functions like LIB files. To my knowledge, nothing in OSS offers any where close to this functionality. You can code a site, even dynamic sites, with just a text editor and a FTP client. However, tools like Dreamweaver add functionality that makes the development process easier. You can make templates in text edit. But when you make a change to the template, text edit won't make the changes to the 200 other files that refer to that template. Dreamweaver will.

    I use Dreamweaver (with the GPL extention PHAkt [interakt.ro]) because it gets my job done faster. If a tool came out that was better or even comparable to Dreamweaver, I'd go for it. But, alas, there is no such a tool.
    • In fact, the proper way to do templates is xslt/css, maybe with some xincludes, and so on. And in fact, I am already prepared for the ideal world where all those standards are supported by most browsers, so that the change doesn't have to propegate through files at all.

      I use a text editor and raw xml, because I want my documents to last forever with minimal maintenance. Dreamweaver will not last forever. Long after ASCII itself has fallen to UTF-8, my documents will stand, with the active support of onl
      • My reference to templetes is just Dreamweaver's templates. Yes, there are many ways in which to incorperate your own templates that will work just the way you decribed.

        However, sad as it may be, a lot of web developers do not even know what xslt or even css is, let alone use it well. Nor is anyone willing to learn them. I would ventuer that the poster of the article is no different.

        At the end of the day, WYSIWYG tools are what win, not hand coding. What ever the tools do to make the final product is fine

        • Re:templates != dreamweaver (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          At the end of the day, WYSIWYG tools are what win, not hand coding.

          Unfortunately, HTML isn't WYSIWYG. HTML is WYSISYGUTCC (under the current configuration). In my experience, this can be problematic if someone else uses a different browser/fonts/resolution than you do. When you consider this problem, it really makes more sense to know exactly what is going on under the covers.
  • I'm not sure exactly what Dreamweaver library files are (you might want to explain that in your article next time, hint hint), but I'm assuming they are used to make templates and dynamic content. In that case, do not use proprietary tools; use either SSI [uiuc.edu] or a scripting language (go PHP!).

    Here are the tools I use for web design:

    Source editing: Crimson Editor [crimsoneditor.com], a freely available text editor that supports syntax coloring and just about anything you'd ever want in a text editor. Somewhat well-designed GU

    • Re:Informative (Score:3, Insightful)

      by I_Love_Pocky! ( 751171 )
      Some times you don't have access to server side solutions (home pages on a public server you don' t control for instance). Other times you could do a server side solution, but the processing overhead is unwanted. If you are statically sharing the same bit of HTML on multiple pages why use SSI or PHP?

      They make the server do the work every single time a user views a page, instead of one time before the page is uploaded to the server.

      For the programmers out there, this is analogous to doing something at
      • See my comment on XSLT... XSLT/XML *is* static linking.

      • Re:Informative (Score:3, Informative)

        by sabNetwork ( 416076 )
        1.) The time required to "process" a server-side include on a non-caching, shared-hosting server is negligible. I invite you to run some timed tests with lynx.

        2.) The point behind using SSI is so that, every time the template is updated, only one file needs to be updated and uploaded.

        3.) Apache runs every HTML page through the interpreter regardless of whether it actually contains SSI code.

        In any case, we can all agree that SSI is better than using JavaScript includes :)

        • 1.) The time required to "process" a server-side include on a non-caching, shared-hosting server is negligible. I invite you to run some timed tests with lynx.

          That depends on server-load, and you need things like xbithack to get proper caching with SSI anyway.

          2.) The point behind using SSI is so that, every time the template is updated, only one file needs to be updated and uploaded.

          The point behind using SSI is to reduce maintenance work. This happens at the expense of server resources. Fo

    • Plenty good enough to get started with, WYSIWYG and all [tutorialsf...office.org]. Produces much nicer HTML if started in HTML mode rather than writer mode, but even so in writer mode, it's chalk-and-cheese better than the abominations MS-Word spits out.

      My own website [cyberknights.com.au], while hardly a paragon of usability or graphic design, is mostly built on OOW-edited HTML that's been fed to a gawk script which rips off the head and tail, replacing them with PHP calls to generic top-and-tail scripts which do the preamble, headings, menu, links-he
      • fish://yourname@yourserver/path/to/website (or ftp://yourname@yourserver/path/to/website) plus drag and drop. Fabulous! The MS Windows version ain't as smooth or up to date, but it is a great deal safer than IE. (-:

        For images, GIMP 2 [gimp.org] doesn't have an image-chopper-upper by default, and while there are plugins to do that, I often prefer to do it (with GIMP, set some guides and then crop to that; you can make some sections of an image JPEG and others PNG (or omit them and replace that piece with flat colour)
  • If I understand what LBI files are, it is some kind of HTML code that is in several HTML pages, and makes your HTML code change everywhere when you change that LBI files? I wouldn't call this efficient.

    XSLT/XML/CSS all the way man. *There* lies the real power. http://www.w3c.org is the real source for webpage edition.

    • If I understand what LBI files are...Odd man out. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Makefiles would appear to be part of the solution. Combine that with CVS, CMS, and frameworks, and one can do a great deal. Linux specifically, and OSS in general does thing DIFFERENTLY, not necessarily better or worse, just different. Maybe what we need is more transition documents showing how one would do something in an open source way, as compared to the closed source way. That would go a long way towards dispelling these "OSS is inferior" posts we see all over Slashdot.

  • Quanta (Score:2, Informative)

    by jspraul ( 146079 )
    one of the premier OSS html editors:

    http://quanta.sourceforge.net/
    • It doesn't do what he's asking for, though. Quanta is lacking any sort of automatic dynamic template system, either using templates proper or via a library system. Their version of templates is write-only.

      Quanta is a nice project manager, and editor ... but for a professional designer looking to update a large web site efficiently, it's useless. It's good for programmers doing web sites, but not designers.

  • not a flame!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nege ( 263655 ) on Tuesday April 20, 2004 @11:19PM (#8925170) Journal
    To be totally honest- I try to use vi whenever i can. reasons:

    - If you code something in a dreamweaver like app, it tends to add other junk to the code - like ^M at the end of every line, and also messes up any spacing you had.

    - The ability to use some of the mapping in vi allows you to make changes to the html much faster (even the use of the . command has made coding groups of things much much quicker than copy and paste, in my opinion)

    At first...VI sucked. Now I really dont want to do any programming / html without it. (commands, macros, regex, oh my!!) :)
    Happy html'ing.
    • Any Windows app worth its salt allows you to choose how to end lines. Adding ^M to the end of line is something a lot of Windows programs do, but Dreamweaver lets you disable it...

      Go to Preferences-->Code Format-->Line Breaks. Choose Unix (or Mac OS, or Windows).

  • Homegrown lbi-based template engine... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @05:52AM (#8926846)
    We actually use the lbi/dwt format as the basis for our template engine. I wrote this because I was annoyed at seeing the assets the web designer works on thrown away, or at best cut & paste, into JSP solutions (the same goes for most other template solutions).

    This solution works best on design-led, rather than code-led projects; ie websites not webapps, since you'll have to change and prototype the UI more, which is where DW is strong.

    Unfortunately I can't at present open source my work, but here's some technical details:
    • our sites static skins are built to be navigable, so that replacing URLs is enough to get the site to use the correct servlets.
    • we ship a .war with the 'static site' skin held separately (typically under apache, see bit on URL rewriting below)
    • the .war is configured with the url to the root of the 'static site', and its location on disk.
    • whenever a .htm, .dwt, .lbi is requested in the dynamic site it reads it from its cache or disk, with some parts of the site replaced (see below).
    • jsps can use static assets as templates, via a template tag lib almost the same as the struts tiles tags. This is the typical means for replacing parts of pages in the static site.
    • the parser for the DW4 type stuff (no javascript expressions) was written by hand; for DWMX I wrote a small javacc parser for the javascript subset they support. The syntax is described pretty well in the DW help, for the JS bits you'd need to see the ECMAScript manual (or just get hold of Moz Rhino)
    • We parse the DW comments, the 9 URL attributes in html (8 standard html4 ones + 'background' I think), and URLs in @imported styles. We parse the URLs because we rewrite them to have the full path in the 'dynamic' site + session ids. Editable regions, URLs and LibraryItems are all replaceable by configuring the .war.
    • lbis are processed as includes; only the editable regions of files based on dwts come from that file - the rest comes from the dwt. This means you can edit the dwt files on the fly.
    • one reason for replacing URLs is that templated JSPs can be reusing a template at a different 'depth' than the original page; putting in absolute URLs avoids this problem. A second reason is that we point all URLs in templates that arent handled by the dynamic site back to the static site - so JPGs etc are served by Apache not the J2EE server (I know there are other solutions for this involving more Apache config...)
    • for those times you need popups - and would think you need URLs in your javascript - the no-JS-friendly [a href="x" target="y" onclick="window.open(this.href, this.target, ..."] allows URLs used by JS to be replaced.


    It works pretty well, and its acceptably fast (when I originally wrote it on an 800MHz laptop, pages with 5 lbi includes were served in about 0.2s if they needed to be reparsed, 0.025s from the cache; for JSPs with 'tiles' tags the figures were 12s and 0.02s. ie, you don't lose much speed if you use the cache, and the first view time - important in sales demos - was much quicker than JSP. NB other template engines that don't involve the compiler are similarly fast, eg Velocity. I didn't have to work particularly hard on optimizing it as it very quickly dropped below the level where DB access and network lag dominated again.

    In terms of effort, it took one developer (me) about a week over it for the first delivery for DW4; the javascripty bits and changes to the parser after DWMX came out took about 2 more.

    Again, its horses for courses. For web /applications/ (where its more important to have reusable UI components) stuff like Tapestry is a better fit. If you are uncomfortable writing parsers, this project is not for you. If you are comfortable with Velocity, then there are velocity extensions for DW that may suit. However, for all our website work this template engine fits our workflow like a glove.

  • LEO does this (Score:2, Informative)

    by johnseq ( 68966 )
    Leo is a python-based open source outlining tool that allows you to do web snippet or common element sharing. It lets you manage any repeated element in a multiple documents in one place, but the beautiful thing is that it will export the common element *inline*, so that unlike Dreamweaver's lib (if I understand it correctly) you actually have a working HTML file that you can view in a browser.

    Leo @ Sourceforge [sf.net]

    It's mature, actively developed, cross platform, and quite useful when working with langu

  • First off (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CiceroLove ( 323600 ) <greg&citizenstrange,com> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:18AM (#8927415) Homepage
    Anyone who uses Dreamweaver for any serious work is off their freaking rocker. I can't imagine for the life of me why anyone would use those tools. It's not just code bloat that makes them so awful but the simple fact that it keeps you ignorant! Do you think the really really interesting and well-designed websites used Dreamweaver for anythign other than project management? You have to get dirty if you want to learn how to code anythign on the web. There are so many undocumented or undervalued tricks to be discovered! But you'll never discover them because Dreamweaver, Frontpage, etc. are made to do one thing: make your website fit within the confines of that program. If Dreamweaver can't do it, you can't do it. That's kind of sad.

    As for what I use (yes I am a professional for almost ten years now).....

    Eclipse Eclipse Eclipse Eclipse Eclipse Eclipse

    Have I made my point yet? :) Extensible, syntax highlighting, project management, open source, free, CVS repository browsing and control, internal PHP processor, internal Perl RegEx engine, Apache control, [insert your need here]

    Eclipse is an unbelievable tool that I have been using for about a year now and I keep finding new ways for it to help me do my job better.

    You can go to Eclipse.org [eclipse.org] to pick up a copy. I highly recommend getting v3.0 M8
    • I hated dreamweaver when I first looked at it version 3 or 4 but recently I looked again at mx2004 and I was immediatley hooked. I agree that older versions introduced much bloat but I don't think that still holds.

      The way it does CSS is very convenient. I like it's cross-browser checking. And what I really like is that one page 1 can
      -edit html
      -edit design
      -edit tag where all the options are easily available
      -check documentation
      -more
      Without it being cluttered!

      I stopped using Homesite and occasionally I use
    • Anyone looking for the one of the best editors ever better check out Eclipse. Any feature you might need can easily be found as a plugin. If WYSIWYG is your thing, there are even plugins under development for that. I highly recommend Eclipse Colorer...excellent syntax highlighting for almost ANY code type...even PHP, CSS, javascript and HTML in the same document! Look it up. Then use it.

  • Get Thee Free From Dreamweaver (Score:4, Informative)

    by smartalecvt ( 748879 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:48AM (#8927639)

    I used Dreamweaver for a long time, as it was convenient and relatively easy (and the library and template features were nice).

    Unfortunately, the problem is that, as others have noted here, using such corporate comforts protects you from doing things the right way.

    I think what you should be thinking about is a content management system, wherein your content is easily editable (live and online) and the system makes you work with templates in the right way (i.e., using CSS). For my current job, I wound up rolling my own CMS, using PHP for the front end and to generate HTML, and MySQL to keep track of templates. For a live content editor, I'm using Ephox [ephox.com], which is a great product but costs a pretty penny. I started out with Spaw [solmetra.com], but it doesn't generate XHTML and can only be used in IE.

    There are a ton of CMSs out there -- I just found that most of them were overkill for my website. (And the open source ones generally use IE-centric products for live content editing.) Just go to sourceforge and search for "CMS". Mambo [mamboserver.com] is one of the better ones I've seen.

    Oh, and I second the nomination of Crimson Editor [crimsoneditor.com] as a good programmer's text editor. (Free, as in beer.) For CSS, I use Top Style [bradsoft.com] (not free, but excellent).

    • Get Thee to PlainBlack (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      try WebGUI from plainblack [plainblack.com]. While in some places it is still rough around the edges, it is very flexible and has a nice core feature set. I consider it the "mysql" of CMS. Just the right functionality. OSS at no additional charge ;).

      It is written in Perl, is modular, and completely templatized. There is not much you can't do with it out-of-box with a little imagination.

      Its only real down sides are limited e-commerce support, and it can be difficult to setup initially. For the faint-of-heart, they off
  • hmm. i've been recommending dreamweaver to everyone who's been thinking of using frontpage, but frankly, i still can't figure out how to fit it into my workflow. i use photoshop for all my graphics and output an initial html from it, and then i use vim on it to handcode the stuff that needs to be handcoded and make a template out of it should i need it as a template. stuff like fireworks still puzzle me, really.

    (ah my designer-student-friend was trying to tell me how programmers can't see things their way,

  • lbi is lame (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dreamweaver's lbi and template functions are a nightmare down the road when someone wants to edit the page. What you really want is includes. Everywhere you would use lbi, use an include instead.
    And you can skip the stupid DWT templates by creating a good, solid xhtml framework for your pages, use css to pretty 'em up, and pull the content in through includes. It's modular, scalable and easily revised. Just reuse your framework.
    Dreamweaver is OK (although no better than OK), but those libraries are way more

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close