NOOB needs help

[ambrose8080]

I built a web page with Microsoft Publisher and was told to use Filezila to upload it. While I was at work my wife allowed a friend of a friend remote access to our PC and he set up our web page. We don't know the guy and he did us a big favor and the next time he helps us, he will charge.
Anyhow through a few revisions to our page we saved the newer version to our desktop and uploaded through FTP and that is when things went BAD, every thing uploaded but our site could not be found, later to discover that we changed the file name on our PC(Problem?) We fixed it SORTA, still have annoying problems though. I just don't understand some things.
Naming the home page index? URL works, but if I navigate my page and hit the home button on my site it goes to page not found(it did not do this before the revision and it seems the other pages lost the index.htm association and I did not change the buttons in MS Pub in my first revision but have forced the other pages to hyperlink back home in another revision)
If I change the name of my HTML doc to something other than http://www.example.com (it automatically creates a folder named after it http://www.example.com_files) on my desktop and upload it, and type in my url, just the newley named folder is displayed(click it, it opens my site)
The extensions(directories?) are goofy on my site because of the HTML doc. folder name.
If I rename the folder on the server where the web files are, I can go to my site and none of the pics come up but everything else does?

I'M SO CONFUSED!

[cor]

I'd love to help, but I can't get to the end of your post without falling about, laughing! Are you serious?

Anyone who allows "a friend of a friend" remote access to their desktop is asking for trouble! But let's assume that you got lucky, and he didn't plant a keylogger on your system, and isn't currently jetting off to the Bahamas on your American Express..

You seem to be confused, pretty much from the ground-up. On top of that, you lack even the basic terminology required to explain your problem! If you can get this solved in under fifty posts, it will be a miracle!

Anyways, I'm gonna leap in with a couple of hunches (cuz I'm in the mood for it)..

Firstly, you need to get to grips with the concept of "source" and "output". It looks like you are mixing them up in findamental ways. The fact that browsers enable you to "View Source" (aka "Page source") only adds to the confusion. Once you understand the differences, though, it all makes perfect sense.

Source files are what you edit. They are virgin, pristine, text files that are NEVER replaced. (like all rules, there will be exceptions, of course, but that's the rule)

Output is what is rendered in the browser. It is for viewing, checking, comparing, but NEVER SAVING. Unless it's somone else's cool web page that you with to keep (the average life of a web page is 100 days, so not such a bad idea!).

Your first mistake is mixing source files and output files. And I mean "mixing" quite literally. You have uploaded source files (or rather, copied them to the server, right?) and then loaded them in your browser (so far so good), and then saved the rendered output files (some kind of backup?), and then (OH MAN!) copied those back up to the server!!! as if they were source files, which they are not.

It's just as well you aren't using php or somesuch, otherwise you would be totally fuxed. Fortunately, for you, there isn't a lot of difference between your source and output files. More like UNfortunately, in many ways, but mainly because it allowed you to confuse the two. If you *had* been using php, your error would have been immediately apparent. (and if you were savvy enough to realize the error, you would be running around shouting "OH SHIT! OH SHIT! I'VE JUST DESTROYED MY SOURCE FILES!!!!". Ignorance is bliss, eh? No.

Now to your source. It's a disgrace. That's not your fault, directly. But it is your fault for choosing that P.O.S. to do your web code. Your pages aren't complex by any means, why not get yourself a decent text editor (EditPlus is good, but there are lots of good free editors, too) and learn some simple XHTML & CSS.

I challenge anyone to read through more than a single page of the outputted html! My eyes started to bleed! Anyway, the point is, by using this M$ monstrosity, you aren't learning anything about creating web pages, and you'll be forever tied into using complicated tools to do simple work.

Unless you really have no spare time, paying someone else to do trivial tasks like updating your site is crazy. With a little effort, and not too much time, you could become a competent web designer, and be empowered to do whatever you desire with your site.

Maybe you aren't interested in that, and I'm just getting carried away for nothing; but I do know that I could produce a web page that looked identical to yours, in a tenth of the code. And so could you. It would be clean, well-structured, simplicity itself to understand and edit, easy to update and customize; you could actually enjoy reading through it.

Why not start simple? Check out some of the excellent online XHTML courses (skip HTML, it's over complex and confusing for n00bs - XHTML+CSS is the way to go - simple, powerful, elegant...), and build a basic page, go from there. The next thing you know you're coding php, and modularizing your site functionality, and the sky's the limit.

But before you begin, get a structure in place on your server, and make an exact replica of it at home. This will be your "development mirror". You will probably want to create the home version, first. Once you get the folder structure in place, stick with it, and ensure it remains (as much as possible) identical on mirror and live versions. The idea is you create at home, test, and then upload.

Files only ever GO OUT OF THE MIRROR, TO THE SERVE, NEVER THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Again, it's just a rule, but a good one. The idea of rules is that it's okay to break them, if you know what you are doing. And there's no way to know what you are doing, without first knowing the rules!

And remember; the journey from source, to server, to browser, is a one-way trip.

Have fun!

;o)
(or

ps. you obviously like dogs, check this, and don't forget to look at the (actually, quite old) "Page source" in a decent text editor, compare it to yours. Spot the difference?

pps. read this again.

[Nuggit]

oh lawd.

I almost want to offer to build a website for that guy, starting from scratch... using clean, simple PHP/xHTML/CSS. It wouldn't be super fancy, but gee.

I hate WYSIWYG...

[cor]

I hate WYSIWYG...

I feel the same way, and "hate" isn't a word I use a lot.

The worst thing about WYSIWYG, is that it sells itself as "simplicity", that it's making things easier for the developer. Truth is, in the old days of HTML3 and HTML4, there was some truth in that claim, but web coding has come such a long way since then, that being right down at the most basic level of the code, with a simple text editor, is waaaaaaaay simpler that trying to deal with one of these crazy IDE's, and that's before we get started on the ugly mess these things spew out and call code.

I feel sorry for anyone stuck using them, and for anyone still bound by the shackles of old-school HTML coding, and HTML-thinking.

Code - Content - Style, these are separate things. And in each of them, more modularization is possible, splitting code from content, content from style, it's a freeing experience. Suddenly you can see eveything, content is clear, code is functional and self contained, and styles apply themselves in a beautiful cascade over which you have complete control. XHTML+CSS is about taking back real control.

Read the following poem until its majesty and beauty fill your soul with JOY!!! ...

Code: Select all

@import "/inc/css/main.css"; 
@import "/inc/css/comments.css"; 
@import "/inc/css/footer.css";

Split those pages up and free your mind!

;o)
(or

ps. note the clever split-infinitive, it's an up, up and away way!

[botg]

WYSIWYG is great if implemented the right way. For example take a look at the Webdeveloper addon for Firefox. It's on-the-fly editing of the stylesheets is a great example of proper WYSIWYG.

[cor]

The Webdeveloper addon is quite excellent; I use it every day, umpteen times a day, but I haven't played with the css editor for editing, because my own css is *generated* at run-time (I alter it, depending on what browser is viewing the page, user preferences) so it wouldn't be much use to me.

I have used it to view the separate generated stylesheets, though. Using @import (as in my above post) along with this, makes it a breeze to see what styles are coming from where. After the "View Style Information" (where hovering over elements pops up their style - wow!) it's my second-most used webdeveloper css tool. Very nice.

For sure, if anyone is going to make a WYSIWYG editor that does things right, the moz crew would defintiely be a candidate. If only they would make a Text editor in the style of Firefox and Thunderbird, the holy trinity would be complete!

;o)
(or