Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Alternative to Dreamweaver's .LBI?
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?"
Just use SSI if your web server supports it (most do). No need to "update all pages" like you do with LBI.
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.
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.
> For design, I use FrontPage, ...
> Just use the right tool for the right job.
Yikes.
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) 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.
AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
Correction: "Any web developer worth his salt writes raw HTML and CSS"
...I couldn't say "in the raw" with a straight face. And may Eric forgive me for using bold tags.
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.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
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, which is a great product but costs a pretty penny. I started out with Spaw, 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 is one of the better ones I've seen.
Oh, and I second the nomination of Crimson Editor as a good programmer's text editor. (Free, as in beer.) For CSS, I use Top Style (not free, but excellent).