T
Tommy Desperate
Someone who designs web sites told me that my web site -
www.hairloss-reversible.com - that I made using FrontPage 2003 has a lot of
fat in the source code. He said that if I made my site using Dreamweaver CSS
or just hand coding the CSS (too difficult for me), that the file size of my
site would be reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He also said that this more
streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more efficient.
My two questions:
1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding" on
my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?
2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding ability
similar in quality to Dreamweaver?
I know the answer to this last question will be sheer speculation. I'd like
to hear what you say though. The progress from FP 2000 to FP 2003 was good.
Maybe the next step will be even better. The learning curve with Dreamweaver
is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.
www.hairloss-reversible.com - that I made using FrontPage 2003 has a lot of
fat in the source code. He said that if I made my site using Dreamweaver CSS
or just hand coding the CSS (too difficult for me), that the file size of my
site would be reduced by 30 to 40 percent. He also said that this more
streamlined code would make spidering by the search engines more efficient.
My two questions:
1. If I use FrontPage CSS, will this clear up some of the "bad coding" on
my site and make it more search-engine spider friendly?
2. Will the new edition of FrontPage (perhaps 2005) have CSS coding ability
similar in quality to Dreamweaver?
I know the answer to this last question will be sheer speculation. I'd like
to hear what you say though. The progress from FP 2000 to FP 2003 was good.
Maybe the next step will be even better. The learning curve with Dreamweaver
is so steep that I'd much prefer to stay with FP.