Posts by autocrat

So many things to choose from :)

But I'd say the most important thing I do for ALL my sites is apply a little Thought & Consideration.

I try my best to ensure it works in both 800 and 1024 resolutions, that fonts are scalable in all browsers, easily legable and whenever the design permits, make things fluid/elastic using em's and %.

Certain designs are obviously out of the question - I (personally) detest any design that "breaks" within a few text size alterations, or when you reduce/expand the window width/height - I just view that as lazy or ignorant (if not both).

The site in many cases, (though not all), is aimed at being informative... if people cannot read things due to their current setup, they should at least be able to easily alter it so that it is available to them,
(that said, I saw someone test a design at over 1500 Res last week... why?).

rich -> copious

(Cannot believe this is still going ;) )

Ok....This thread is almost 2 years out folks.

...Korigirl...
So you want to generate some sort of smart, clever, pretty gallery?
It's actually easier than you think - and for most things you can use CSS instead of JavaScript.
That said, do try to consider things such as Accessibility.
If you would like assistance, just PM or post here.

...MildMagic... Not particularly helpful? If I ask for directiosn to a library, what you gonna do, tell me to go to a books store and buy one instead ?
Not repremanding you (hell, I'm hardly ever here now adays), but please think first, type second.

Cannot believe this is still going... after 2 Years :)

Okay - lets think...

Now using a CMS system called Xaraya.
I have modified it quite a bit so as to increase SEO...

the code has the following...

Components
... these are the various bits of information that are used ...

Site Name (company / club / site title)
Page Name (the name / title for that page)
Site KeyWords (Those KW's that appear through-out the site)
Site Description (The Dscrptn that appears through-out the site)
Page KeyWords (Those KW's that appear for that page)
Page Description (The Dscrptn that appear for that page)

Placement
... these are the various placements of the information ...

HEADER
<title> = Site Name + Page Name
<kw> = Site Name + Page Name + Site KeyWords + Page Keywords
<dscrptn> = Site Name + Page Name + Site Description + Page Description

BODY
<h1> = Site Name
<h2> = Page Name
Content = Hopefull a fair density of the KW & Dscrptn :)

Okay folks... I'm currently using a CMS system for the vast majority of the sites I build.
I have a simple setup for Ecommerce and use the PayPal cart for Cart and Payment.

The issue is, two of my Clients are doing rather well, an dare considering go up a level or two in the ecommerce game. They have both been sweet and stated they'd rather wait a bit and let me generate something for them rather than going else where.

Now, I have the functionality to create Custom tables/db/dbs that can be easily integrated into the site and CMS... but I'm not 100% certain that I am thinking things through thoroughly enough.

So if I oultine my thoughts, I'd appreciate and welcome comments, suggetsio9ns, hint's tips and even criticisms...(to make it clear - no, I don't want to use an existing system, I want to make it integral with my cms sites - no third part stuff okay).

So, as far as I can figure, taking a rather simplistic view of things...

Products, Shipping and Payment.
This is not counting on having User or Wholesaler accoutns etc. (hink that part is easier :) ).

Products
Now, rather than making it overly simple, I need to consider things such as Stock etc.
This is a little confusing at first, as you could be selling tyres... you not only need the item information; such as name, …

... raheleh ...

sorry - but are you asking to "hide";
1) some parts of the webpage content, such as hding a menu, or some advertising banners etc...
2) some part of the browser window, suc has the toolbar, addressbar etc...

???

If (1), then same goes as from tgreer, look into CSS properties... possibly even create a seperate stylesheet just for that view.

If (2), there are sites out that will give you a form, and create the JS you need based on your input. All you do is C&P that code.

Note, if you use the JS method, you will probably have to open a new window, (not good for accessibility standards compliance!), and some people aren't keen on having now real control over a window!

Further, the JS is likely to work on the more common browsers, but not all, (probably IE5+, maybe NN6+ abd MFF1+).

Ah, well, to my knowledge, there is no such thing!

Which I must admit - SUCKS
:)

Still, if ever you find such a piece of kit, please come back to this thread and post it... it owuld be worth paying for... well, worth paying some for ;)

... godfear1 ...

Pretty, but I tend to avoid tables.
After much argueing, testing, re-arguing and re-testing, I came to agree with the many CSS lovers out there, "tables just don't do it".
CSS blocks have to many advantages ove Tables in regards to lighter code and Accessability...
That said, Tables still holds some advantages (e.g. multiple columns or ratio heights)...
PLus yours was damned pretty!

... Rhyan ...
Your English was fine!
Scalability is achievable... just takes a bit of practice and some time to learn new logic.
As much as I adore CSS, I have no idea what the developers were on when they came up with NNN means XXX should happen... some of it is a little strange at first when something doesn't do what you thought.

Try setting font-size: 62.5%; in HTML, then setting font-size: 1em; in BODY in your CSS file... that should equate to being around 10px in most if not all browsers.
that makes it damned easy to make things scalable, and not just text!
you can allocated heights and widths in em's too.... as well as margins or positions.... (position: absolute; top: 2.5em; left: 5em;) means 25px from the top and 50px from the left... as the text-size is increased in the browser, so will the spacing!
:)
also works for images! just set an id or class for your image, then in the CSS allocate dimensions in …

...
:)

Okay, as for the "Imaginery Purists", they do exist (honestyl!)... they tend to scream and shout about markup for pretty stuff!
Ah well - kind of glad none have shown.

Regarding the Dynamic... I wans't refering to the creation of entities etc.... more the number of techniques that rely on set figures, px based width/height etc.
These are design techniques I am unable to use simply for the fact that I never know exactly what the client will do to the site!
(Unfortunately it is not possbily to programme an "Electric Moronic Client" button onto Sites - Yet!)

As for using only 2, for Span and Links... for some presentations/looks/feels, this is feasible, but not if you intend for the "Entire" site to be scalable (changing text-size etc.).

Point of fact... Any site I look at, I change the Width of the Browser Window and Change Text Size - one or the other of these two things will often screw-over about 60% of sites.
Then load up without JS.... even more fail to render nicely.
With CSS-amazingly enough, quite a few still look the same - which is a shame - as I now love CSS :)

Hmmm, kind of funny really.
Hard to beleive MS missed that opportunity - normally quick of the mark in that sort of thing!

As for those mentioning Domain NAme Squatting etc.... that should be made illegal - so long as the name isn't being used (All thos stupid look-up and search sites bug me no end!)...

Yet that one is being used - well and trully :)

As for Browser-Wars... I don't think people/Companies should be coding the browsers - only the additional functions/features.
The core Browser stuff ought to be coded and realeased - at least that way there would be a stable, realiable, cross-system browser and rules... hell, you might even get conformity and compatability with guidelines (Well, worth asking Santa for any ways ;) )

Hmmm, probably not a particularly useful response... but I'll throw it in anyways...

If you stick to basic CSS, and ensure that you use valid code and a correct DocType, you should get near to 95% compatibility for different Browsers and OS.

I only test on Windows IE6, MFF 1.1+ and NN6 (orNN7!).
If I can get it right in NN, it seems to work on most other platforms/browsers.

Once you leave the path os "standard", you start hitting major problems.

So don't!

You'd be amazed what happens if you applypadding to a parent instead of margins to a child!
Applying display:block to Span or to flaoted elements helps keep IE in shape, as does using vertical-align: // line-height // height-width etc.

And avoid Hacks (so many people are now facing the problem of MS actually fixing bugs with IE7, so half the sites are now Knacked!!!).

I am serious too, simple, basic coding and styling can work wonders... as will expanding you hands on knowledge of Floats, Absolute, Relative and Default behaviours whilst creating content flow!

Leave the programs behind... I can manually design, cut up and create a page design in 24 Hours... and it will work on most if not all browsers... don't rely on software - use your brain and common sense, more reliable, and you should normally carry it with you :)
(apart from Wednesdays, when I leave mine at …

WELL....

It's been a while... and I've played.... and Played... and PLAYED!

Xaraya.

After pestering their IRC Support channel... I get some answers (poor folks never new what hit them :) ).

I've done about 12 sites with it.... and no two are a like.
Each is fully custom designed (by hand!), with it's own CSS.... even most of the "Module Templates" have been modified, and in some cases, completely re-built (Output only, I tend to shy away from the PHP ;) )

So, if you are willing for a shock, and a steeeeeeeeppp learning curve... teh nit is Xaraya.
Not one other system I have found is as flexible in regards to design... and the output is pretty flexible too (once you figure that there are inner and outer templates for just about anything + the odd middle tempaltes :) )

well, just thought I'd update.

And no, thats not flexible enough... 4 divs breaks far to easily!!!

6 Divs works well enough though (two for either side, plus one for corner, ((one top long, one top short, same for bottom)))

Further, I don't think there ever will be an easier method of doing this.... not unless they are able to make CSS read images, emulate & replicate the data for varied output!

Also, just to pick a fight with any purists.... ( ;) ) .... how is making images 5 times the size better than code twice the size?
(I won't accept the answer of "they can turn images off" :) )

well, if anyone ever does figure this out... give us a PM or something :)

Hey, thanks for the reply :)

Well, I can do some pretty nice boxes... same code, different images... looks fantastic!
Downside is... Minimum 8 Divs!

No matter if I nest all inside each other, with an Image per position (t/b/l/r/tl/tr/bl/br) or if I do four nested and position the corners... still 8 divs :(

As for the DIV vs SPAN ... not worried about the inline etc... it's the amount of code that makes me laugh! So many people "shout-down" about a lot of markup, and say I should use span not Div, or apply the backgrounds to P tags etc...
Yet ...
1) It's still the same amount of code
2) That method won't work for Dynamic Sites
3) No. 2. is esp. if some numpty Client is using a WYSIWYG input editor ;)

Hmmm, maybe something similar to the sliding doors? using 4 large Images instead of 8 little ones ?

Erm, when you say "Cross Browser Compatible", don't suppose you could list which Browsers and O/S's it is compatible with... (Horizontal parent with Vertical Child Drop-downs seem the most difficult and Browser stuffable Menu to date :()

Of course, if you know it works, then I'll take it!
;)

Hmmm, cannot see any where specific for this, so if I'm wrong, please move topic and accept my apologies :)

IE7 is out!
This wouldn't be too bad, apart from I'm not upgrading to it until I know I can either go-back to IE6 with not hassles, or I can use both for testing purposes.

I've read up on it, sounds great.

The problem is, (as I knew it would be), they actually fixed several major bugs... and removed "Hackability" to some extent.

This not only means that there are now Umpteen thousand sites that look dodgey, it means some of mine may be in there :)

Does anyone use the "Star Selector Hack" for hiding CSS from all browsers bar IE ?

i.e.
* body
{
border: 10px solid #000000;
}

OR, as I prefer to use...

body
{
border: 15px solid #000000;
*border: 10px solid #000000;
}

(Oddly enough - few people seem to have made this leap!)
((It does work - Only IE reads the * marked property, and as it's second, it over-rides the first! :) )

Now, my question is... what does IE7 do with this?
Does anyone know?

If I read-right, it should actually ignore the * line... and hopefully, due to bug fixes, actually render the css properly, (so it's basicly ignoring a hacked-line that is no-longer …

Okay... this is bound to result ins a whole bunch of "personal" opinions, but I shall ignore those :)

It is possible to apply borders with CSS.

What is not yet fully supported are the various special "fancy" border options for things like Curved Edges, Drop Shadows etc... so we are forced to resort to using images etc.

What I'm after is some input on what is deemed as "acceptable markup" for creating these boxes.

Right, criteria ...

• I avoid using JS/DOM as much as possible, so those are out.
• I am not a "Purist", though I would prefer to use "less code" over "more code".
• I always am for Fluid/Flexible/Dynamic designs, so fixed Height/Width is out.
• I am aiming for the "Most" potential design, thus all four edges and all four corners!

Imagine having you content in a nice little block.
Boring.
The Client wants funny shapped corners, 3D looking edging around the content, and fancies either a dropped shadow or glow around the whole lot.
Not Nice!
(Hey, They can pay for it ;) )

Now, the only method I can come up with involves either Div's to the Max and some dodgey Margin/Padding work for CSS Background-Images and Cross Browser support....
OR
Almost as many Divs and several Images for the Corners with some Positioning.

Is there a better way than having 8+ Divs?
Also, whilst I'm …

Sorry, obviously I typed out so fast I failed to put enough details in!

I require a 3 column layout......
*strict xhtml
*header & footer seperate from the content block with the 3 cols.
*each column must stretch vertically to match the longest column.
*the left and right columns need to be of fixed width.
*the central column needs to be fluid.
*the html / source order needs to be Left Center Right

I only need this for IE, as I have a decent copy for other browsers... I just seem unable to get this running right in strict xhtml for IE.

Hope that makes more sense.

Yep, the title is right!

All I want is a method for getting IE to display 2 divs in a row, the l/r to be 200px wide, the center fluid.

The only stipulations are that all three stretch to 100%, (usually easy in IE), and that the HTML order is L C R.....
so floating seems off in this case!

Please assist.... I'm sick to death of non-compliant browsers and far-fetched layouts.... I've got a layout working in NN6+ and MFF 1.1+..... all I need is one for IE, and if I have to use a seperate/different CSS sheet, then stuff it, I will!

I accept that.
I hadn't even considered the hack-handers as well as those that use software apps.
Again, my bad.
;)

Still, would be nice if there was a true body to check such things, one that wasn't money orientated, to act as a watch dog or such.

Occasional mistakes, the odd browser mis-interpretation etc... these things occur over time due to advancements etc..... yet some of the people out there taking peoples money for what they claim as professional work is indignant.... if services suc has contracting, mechanics, textiles etc. are "policed", I wonder when our range of services will be?

Sorry, my bad... should have been a little more clear on the complaint definition.

It is not that I hold anything against such applications.... it's just the large number of folks that use them with little understanding of what web-design entails, and they fail to clean up the code..... leaving MM_js all over the place, internal CSS on everypage.

It is not that the software is unprofessional, merely that a lot of unprofessional people default to such software... I hope that makes sense.
I think it's all those stupid caourses.... you know, become a professional web designer in 28 on this dreamweaver course!

so, no offence to those that use the software, (*cough* or those that produce it! ;) )

Thank you for the responses

I personally, am in line with Arg.2..... Arg.1 was suppositioned by my Boss.
As he wouldn't take my word for it, I thought I'd post the idea on several forums and show him the responses.

So far, "Everyone" has gone with Arg.2.
Since then, the Boss has shut-up. He may not agree, but he won't argue with me.

I deem it unprofessional in most cases to not follow Arg.2.
no matter whether the site is a quick knock-out or not, it still needs to be formed around the purpose and function of the site.
Further, things such as Navigation and presentation to me are the main formuliac part of the site, and require a large degree of effort. Without considering the content, how to display, and how to get to it, it's not web-designer.... I might aswell use Dreamveaver or Frontpage and just churn-out block Html.

So, again, thank you for the replies, as they helped resolve an ongoing - issue at work.
Much appreciated

Hi folks.

Having a few issues with my Boss, and was hoping that a little input from others would help resolve the conflict once and for all!

So, the issue at hand...?
The design process or Web Design/Creation.

Arguement 1)
When you get a client, you should be able to conceive and create a general design based upon a handful of data from the Client.
There is no need to have any idea s to the purpose, function or content of the site.
All you need to do is create some generic designs to show layout, colours, themes etc. to permit the Client to choose roughly what they are after.

Arguement 2)
When you meet a client, you should bew able to coax the required info out of them. If they want a website, most of them should a have an idea as to what they think site should
do and look like, and may even have a fair conception of the end appearance and behaviours.
You shouldn't come up with to many pre-conceived ideas as to overal appearance until you havea good grasp on possible content and how it is to be displayed.

So please, let me know which of those two arguements you are more inclined to agree with as good-practice, common sense or simply the right way to do it.

If you feel upto it, short notes for justification are welcome as well!

…

OK, peoples prefences, opinions or ideas / knowledge on getting IE to act properly for getting Hover etc. to work.

I've looked at the Suckerfish & Son of Sucker Fish, and I've looked at the htc file.....

and can't figure whish is better.
By better, I mean taking into acount flexability, versatility, size, ease of use, bandwitdth usage, time, code specific errors etc.....

So, what do others use, why, how and are there any alternatives?

OK, I've looked at Mambo, PHP Nuke, Post Nuke, Xoops and Xaraya.

I've read up on several others....

Is it me, or is there NO CMS system that lets you just position things where you want them. Everything seems to really on a coloumn based layout.
Whats really got me stuck is that I can't even find one that uses a basic template page for call locations, (as in OS Commerce, it uses Tables, thus you can readily alter whats where,, and utilise a bit of CSS to create a completely different look!)

So.... Ifg I ask really carefully, can you all kindly let me know if you have come across....

* A system that has an administration/update/submission section.
* Something that utilises easily alter template pages.
* A CMS that lets you have fully customised layouts.
* Something that you can just plug in to a pre existing site.

The CMS's I've looked at are grerat, and have brilliant mod's, easy to install etc..... just not what I'm after.
Can't help but wonder IF I'm asking for to much!

Maybve the best approach is to spend several months just playing with php and mysql, so that I can create a basic system for calling, displaying and retrieving PHP functions, then generate a basic page layout section so that templatyes can be altered/pugged into?

Stare -> Glare

{and it rhymes}

Three different forums..... and no replies at all!

Is it me, or do I seem to hit the difficult problems?

OK, I have a page I've built to customers spec, (boss's).
Utilise's min-width etc in NN and Moz.

Not IE - obviously.
Found JS to emulate min-width..... yet the download for the script is huge!
To big.
Alternatives - limited.... can only find the IE expression for CSS to emulate this!

Not compatible tith any Doc type I can find..... as soon as there is a doc type, IE 6 crashes out, (big freeze!) + causes issues with NN and Moz, plus makes things a little different in IE... fonts are wrong, positioning is out etc.

Fix one thing, break another!

So, does anyone know how to get IE into quirks mode without breaking things in the other browsers.

Really, what I need is a Doc type that is compatable with the CSS Expression for IE.
Any ideas?
Please?

OK.... you'll do fine to take my edge off today!
Thank you for volounteering....

1) CLEARLY stated ..."Boss wants".
2) It's an additional element... if JS is disabled, then they get the accepted/expected norm.
3) The sites you build have white Bg, black Txt, no images and use pure html 1.1 with tags that are completely depreciated?
4) So... you live in a tree, get wet when it rains, get cold when it's cold, hot when it's hot, walk to work, carry your shoipping home without the use of bags or other transportation etc..... What do you mean NO!?
People do different things all the time.... thats one of the wonders of the web.
I'm inclined to agree with you to some extent... but this is what I've been asked to do, so this is what I shall do!

So, care to contribute?

Please dson't take offence... yet I don't ram convention down peoples throatsm so please have the same courtesy.

OK..... I have a site/page template I've made.... looks good!

Set the height and set overflow in CSS so I get scroll bars if JS is disabled....
yet the boss wants a method of using icons to scroll up/down without scrollbars...... seen it on several sites..... found sample code.... hacked about with several different ideas.....

Keep hitting the same problems.........either it's not compatable with Netscape, or the code works out to be around 5 kb+.... which is far to high!
((esp. when you have the JS to make IE have minwidth and a rather cool JS menu which site over the normal nav system..... the js is getting to be around X2 the size of the page and the graphics and the content!))

So, does any one of a simple, easy and "small" JS that will let me scroll up and down in a div - using mouseover two images?

Precomend something called XAT....It's one of my little secrets, (erm..was!) for img reduction. Works wonders and gives strong control.

I've been thinking about it.... yet know virtually nill on PHP!
(meant to be learning in my spare time... so I get about 10 minutes a week to learn a new language! LOL)

Still, something I have considered is just making a basic pghp addition system, so they can automatically link into a page section and alter it... yet I think I have seen some software to do the same.....not sure.

Well, I've got one up and running using Iframes, and haven't ha\d any problems so far in IE6, NN6 or MFF1, so it seems ok..... only I now have to load up 2 images per link, (front and side view!).
As for the form, I thought it would be easier for it to be filled in as the links where clicked......that way nothing has to be parsed, checked etc.... they just choose the cane, then click proceed, and all the details are their waiting... (may even add a second image set so that the cane is built from the form options, so they can make sure it is all ok!

Thats fine, but the main issue is still my time! he seems to think that I can just dump in content management on a standard site without any bother, and that I won't have to take time out to learn it!

Whats more, I now have to look into Oscommerce and APnet or something for e-commerce ability, PHP Auctions software.... it's beginning to rub me the wrong way!

So, no really simple, add a line or so of code and let them play with that area form os content management?

OK, a friend of a friend asked me to look into building a online cane builder. The cane can have a variety of different cuts, grooves, handles etc. In all, I thought it best to create a 2wide 4high grid containing a basic cane, and depending what they clicked on, I could swap the images over.

Simple. I can use iframes or use javascrip and frames, or just plain java script.

Now, the issue is that what he forgot to tell me was that he wants the end results parsed ont a form so that customers can order their very own custom defined cane!

So, is it possible to use php to perform image swapping?
Or would it be better to some how get javascript to fill in the form?
any ideas ?

All of thats fine.... it's just tha thaving to parse it all through a web server to test etc... where as access lets me run from my desktop!

No reason I can't do both.... get the basic running in access, then build it in mysql etc.... run them paralell.

Yet my real want is for something that will generate the php/html etc for the db... like the forms part of access....a wysiwyg approach to the page layout and fields, relations etc. ????

Is that sarcasm?

LMAO....
So true!

So... MAmbo.... I think I've seen it... I'll go look again. I just don't want something complicated.... I prefer to manual code my pages, and the idea of having to conform to certain requirements doesn't appeal to me, nor does permitting a bunch of apes the access to foul up my designs, then to scream it's useless and doesn't work once they have broken it!

ah..makes sense!¬ Not use to the short hand.... coul've sworn I read somehwhere that some browsers don't support some of the shorthand properties...(I think!).
As to the minwidth, I want things to pass as ok in 800x600 at least, if not as small as 640x480......that way it still looks good.......the amount of sites I've seen that when reduced on width look bad! things drop, overlap etc... just don't want that!

By th by... how comes 1) the lesser amount of div's? 2) background: #ff3366 url(br.gif) 100% 100% no-repeat; ??? what do the %'s refer to?

The min-width is also me.... I actually have a way of making ie work just like NN and MFF..... stopping the float from carrying on across the page.... you ned a PX margin on the left, a % margin on the right, and <!-- --> tage at the top of the HTML doc before the Doc type!

For the sake of example, I would like to have a white background, with a top and bottom bar and the four crv's all pink!

Does my previous explanation make sense?
For a live sample, look at.....

www.bokb.co.uk/test/m3/m3.html

That really does vary greatly.... depending on the type of business you are refering to!
Are we talking about different types of Commerce sites....if so, are we talking services, merchandise, products, agencies etc......or are we talking hosting, design, managment, ?????

Be a little more specific, as there are vast worlds of difference between hosting and design companies, not to mention things like E-bay, specialist sercive providers, general produce locators, dating agencies etc.

Basically, I have to redisign a site that had a large box set 800x600 static using tables.
The top and bottom corners were all curved, and the top and bottom edges ran inline with the two corresponding corners, (thus it lkooked like to bars, 1 at the top, 1 at the bottom, with the edges chamfered!).

Crv....Bar....Crv
........Hdr........
...Menu Bar.....
....Content......
Crv...bar.....Crv

No I have been asked to do this, but better, (the original coding was awful!), so I though CSS, make it liquid/expandable, generate minwidth properties....

So, I create a box,
put in a div for the top - float the 2 Crvs - set BgImg,
beneath is another Div for the Hdr,
Beneath this is another div, which contains a dive full of little menu div's,
2 Divs - set widths - floated R and L for the edges + the content div in the middle,
div for the bottom - float the 2 Crvs - set BgImg.

I thought it would be simple... yet as soon as you try anything remotley clever with css, you hit god knows what problems, and thats not inc. browser bugs! Just the odd way that things work and the order things need to be placed in etc..... I'm thinking of using tables for this, because CSS is just to flaming fiddly..... I can do similar stuff in tables in less than 20 minutes.... yet in CSS, it's …

It's just a template that my boss wants from an existing site that needs redesigning for a client... the original only works in IE via tables... so I thought I'd try it with css.... looks ok until the font size is changed!

Does it matter if I prevent the font-size changing?
(need I ask?)

OK, is it possible to then make that a full box frame... such as having a top/right/bottom/left edge in between the corners?

Your codes sure alot simpler that the one I made to just creat the box! Hell, I had 3 horizontal dives in a container, and in the middle H div, I floated a div right and a div left! thats like = 6, where as yours is just = 4.

Can't beleive it's that simple!

is it that simple to do the postal code thing... I've seen that sort of engine on the net for sale, and it's no cheap... something about comparing the PC and distance using Longt/Latt etc. ?

Hope it is that simple... might have a go as my first real project!

OK.... erm.... der.... gee george.... wtf?

I have no idea... but thank ytou all for posting!
LOL

OK, I take it that is eseveral different methods to utilise php to call up the content, or to permit the client to allter the html, and call up the hdr/ftr etc.

I think I understand the application of ... mod_rewrite ... yet have no idea how to implement it.
(php is coming after css in the learning curve, which wobbles alot lately LOL!)

So, succinctly, it IS possible to have the code broken down so that I have a templated page, enable the page to load in a section via php, and convinve the server/search engines that it is a static page?

Is that correct? If so, then I think that will do... I'll just find a simple html/browser based txt esdito to let them connect and alter their part of things! easy!

Thats the real problem I'm facing... time.
I don't have alot of time to waste on learning a new system, only to have to teach it!
And thats what will happen!
My boss seems to have no idea of reality at all..... he's thinking it will save time and money, where as I think it will cost both, plus effort and frustration to boot!

I think I might tell him to stick the idea.... it stinks to high heaven and is begging for trouble... why would a little business want CMS anyway?

I've been thinking about this... and it is (should be) easily implemented... .yet the drawback is that the page's content becomes non-SEO....as they are created at the time.

What I need to do is find a way of parsing then making the changes permenant... till the next time!

This is so stupid! The only reason to do this is because we have a couple of clients that have no idea as to what they are wanting, and just want to sound big.... 14 static pages.... update once a month.... why the CMS!
Sheesh!