I'm stumped. I'm not so sure what is the answer. I'll do some poking around and get back to you if I bump into an answer. You should email the people at iPage as they probably could answer your iPage question..
From what I've seen, Dreamweaver puts so much extra code in, that most of the time you can't make heads or tails out of what you really have. For the price, I'd think they could do better on their coding...
Look at this mess:.
What's with all the <td... height="30">.
ALL THE HEIGHTS ARE 30!..
Actually, I think you'd better start looking at the help and tutorials for Dreamweaver. As far as wysiwygs go, it's not too bad. The only reason it would have put all that extra code in is because you told it to..
I do like dreamweaver a lot, but look at some of those examples! I don't even know HTML and I see redundancy galore!.
All I'm doing is cutting and pasting, moving things around and adding rows. I can understand maybe if it doesn't catch this repititious stuff on the fly, but there should be a simple command where it can analyse the code and clean it up...
Like Neil (option1) said, it will only be there is you added it. it doesn't come up all by itself. I mean DW is bad but not that bad.......
Well okay, I may be blaming DW for my own endless formatting and reformatting as I rearrange things in the WISYWIG, but I'm still somewhat surprised to see stuff like.
But I guess somewhere along the line DW was just doing what I told it to do..
Optimize HTML gives me 53 returns at download.com..
I have a feeling that most of the gurus here prefer to optimize their code straight up in a text editor, but if you can refer me to some good software I can use to slim this bloated page down, I'd appreciate it...
The problem is, any HTML optimizer is only really going to be able to do a couple of things: a) take out whitespace, and b) reformat a couple of older tags to newer standards. they're simply not intuitive enough to be able to "know" whether or not you MEANT to put that stuff in there or not. certain tags like <big> and <font> (though I don't know why anyone would want to do that) actually CAN be used consecutively, in conjunction with themselves, and I doubt there's any program that's built to understand all that..
IMHO, it would take less time to clean it up yourself (and you'll accidentally learn stuff in the process... trust me!), than it would to find an optimizer and test it, download another 3 or 4 and test them, and finally giving up and doing it the hard way after all...
Point well taken..
All those strings of <b>'s and </b>'s I was able to take care of with a little replace <b><b> with <b> (over and over from the top about ten times.).
There were also hundreds of <td width="30"> in this table with over 60 rows (all of 'em set to a width of 30) so I got rid of them, too..
On to the fonts next. The actual fonts type doesn't change (just size and color for headings vs. contents) so there's lots more that can be stripped..
So far I've been able to condense this page (really just a massive table of files available for download) from about 100KB to 80KB, so hopefully it's all helping to prevent dial-up users who arrive from bailing out before the page loads...
There are quite a few things like this that can be easily optimised on most pages. Things like:.
<font face="blarg"><font size="10"><font color="#FFFFFF">.
Can be optimised to:.
<font face="blarg" size="10" color="#FFFFFF">.
Be sure to run the code through.
Just to make sure that in doing this editing, you still have equal numbers of opening and closing tags, and that they are still correctly nested in order. It is easy to introduce errors, or have tags which open but don't close, or which are nested incorrectly, such as.
And so on..
By the way:.
Size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">.
<font color="#00FF40" size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">.
In your example above..
This can make the code a lot clearer to read and update...
Oh geez, the validator tells me I have a fatal error, no doctype specified..
I'm guessing HTML 4.01, whether it's strict, transitional or frameset, I don't know. I'm guessing the little bit of java that allows a link to open in a new window and the one flash file won't change the doctype from being HTML 4.01..
Couldn't dreamweaver have analysed this for me?..
Okay, I was just given over 600 reasons why it's not HMTL 4.01 strict..
Perhaps we'll try transitional..
Okay, only 23 errors with transitional, that's something I can work on...
Okay, only 23 errors with transitional, that's something I can work on.
The same mistakes pop up over and over again on most sites, so the answers to those are probably already noted in many different threads in the last few weeks. Post again if you get stuck on anything specific...
Eight of them are on this line:.
Doesn't the W3C like flash?..
Depends whether you use.
And so on, here. There is much to trip the unwary, and a lot of IE or NN.
Code is often used for functions like this...
You don't say which version of Dreamweaver you are using, but in MX there is a clean up tool under 'Commands>Clean up HTML' which will remove some of the problems you are finding. It seems they are aware of the problems of duplication of tags when using WYSIWIG and reformatting...
Thanks for the tip, I do have MX and I feel like a total dweeb for not finding that!!! I honestly did search the help for "clean HTML" and "optomize HTML" with no luck..
Here's another thing I'm finding looking at the code. Like I said before, the entire page is mainly made up of a massive table of files available for download. The table has 7 columns of varying width. Here's what most of the rows end up looking like in HTML code:.
BUT, I have found a few rows looking like this:.
Notice that the first three cells in that row don't specify the width, but from my browser, the format continues just fine..
I'm wondering if once the different column widths are specified in the first row, do I really need to keep restating them over and over? Is this more unnecessary code I can clean out or are there any reasons why it's a good idea to keep specifying these widths?.
I do appreciate the time you guys are all taking to help me out, your advice is being put to good use...
Please can someone edit the wide posts to fix the darn thread stretch..
Yes, you're right, you only need to specify each cell width once and all the others will follow unless some cells contain long single 'words' which wont wrap - probably also why this thread width is stretched. Long 'words' in one cell will cause all cells in that column to have the same width as the widest...
Awesome, just slashed another 2KB from the code. What was close to 90KB is now down to 64KB. Thanks for all the help, everyone...
I stuck with the default for the section headings in the table, but I had to ask myself, do I really each individual file to be set to <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">?.
It's all default now. I like the look of verdana a little bit better, but not enough to justify the extra 13K..
The page is now down to 51KB. I was really starting to get into the whole optimization process, it's almost a letdown now that I've trimmed pretty much everything that can be trimmed...
You could use CSS to change the defult font family therefore only adding a little text to the page and saving 95% of the code to change it to verdana.
Just throw that into the head section of your page. it will change all defult font text to Verdana..
Whoa! That's cool. Does "font-family:" take care of the specific listing of "Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" for other browsers & OSes?.
As far as I'm considered you could use.
And no it shouldent make it any more un compatible from what you are already using.
<Ducks covers for the last comment>..
Wow... I`ve been reading this since it was posted and well... decided to chip in!.
When I started doing HTML (hmmm.... 4 years ago I guess), I was using Front Page (.
) and you should the crap that that software puts in. But I must admit that it was a great learning tool!.
What I suggest (and that how I got started BTW) is to redo your iPage site with Notepad (or Homesite (for the color coded HTML - NO WYSIWYG!) Trust me on this... you will learn so much... you are already learning by chopping code off... might as starting over putting code in!.
I know it might be long but... it's soooooooo worth it!.
Also... you are on a great forum right now with lots of people willing to help you and learn all this easy stuff... especially CSS (the basic stuff is easy anyways!)!.
Just a side note : Isn't <font> a depreacted HTML 4 tags?..