When I publish I get “One or more HTML files which do not belong to this site will be overwritten. Do you want to continue? I click OK because I don’t know what else to do but the problem does not go away. It goes through the long process of publishing and it looks like everything is OK but when I open the file again, every file is “doted” like it needs to be published again. So I tried to publish again and the same thing happens.
Dianna, I have been having similar issues. It happens intermittently, then
resolves itself after publishing, so I am unsure what is causing the
behavior.
I’m hal-convinced it is something to do with the local page stylesheets. I
use very few actions, I DON’T use master pages - but I do replicate pages
and page items that I have created in place of a master. Often when
duplicating them I end up with extra styles that I must purge (like
h2.style1 or strong.style). That’s my basic workflow, so I don’t know for
sure.
I agree – that error message is alarming. But that may be all there is to
it. Hopefully, someone at SP can enlighten us.
–
Ernie Simpson
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Dianna email@hidden wrote:
Freeway Pro Problem
When I publish I get “One or more HTML files which do not belong to this
site will be overwritten. Do you want to continue? I click OK because I
don’t know what else to do but the problem does not go away. It goes
through the long process of publishing and it looks like everything is OK
but when I open the file again, every file is “doted” like it needs to be
published again. So I tried to publish again and the same thing happens.
The error has become familiar for me, like a word from a good friend that says: “I am still here to watch over you”…
No, just kidding. I ignore the warnings as well. They disappear after saving and restarting the app. My 2cents is that the internal database of FW has got a mismatch of some kind.
I get “One or more HTML files which do not belong to this site will be overwritten. Do you want to continue?
If you are in that situation and are really not that sure what to do about it then stop for a sec.
Go into the Finder and create a new Site Folder ie “sitefolder (todays date)”
Then in FW go to File>Document setup and select your newly created site folder using the Select button under the first (Document) Tab in the dialogue box.
Now publishing will create a fresh untainted version of your output in your new site folder.
It is not a bad idea to do this occasionally to get rid of duplicated FW created files.
Well, for one thing I’ve been using Freeway Pro since before there were so
many actions for it. As a result, there are a lot of things I learned how
to make it do all on my own.
For the most part, actions extend the functionality of Freeway Pro and I
think that’s great. I love the action developers and am so very grateful
for their work.
However, in recent years I think Freeway Pro has become overly dependent on
actions… which has a curious result from my view. Many are content to
shoehorn action on top of action without really attempting to learn what is
possible with only an intimate knowledge of the application and a general
knowledge of html/css. “Actionification” seems to let users get away
without learning how Freeway Pro can really work. For many they are like
training wheels that never come off.
But don’t confuse what I’m saying as “actions are bad” or some such
malarkey. I do use them and some have become essential to my workflow.
Right now I am heartbroken because one of my favorites didn’t make the
transition to Pro 6, but all that really means is I will have to go back to
a manual method to achieve those results.
So I only use the actions I need, and I don’t need any - except for this
one. And that one. Or that other one. But that’s all, I don’t need any
others. Except maybe this one - http://youtu.be/rSWBuZws30g
–
Ernie Simpson
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM, RavenManiac email@hidden wrote:
So, which of your favorite actions didn’t make the transition?
Tim Plumb had an action called Simple Include Pro which could be used to
merge FWP elements on output – very handy for replicating footer or menu
content across a whole site. Ideally this is something that Master Page
Items should replace, hence its decline – however, I still find the whole
master page thing unreliable, so I am tediously replicating repeating
content page by bloody page.
There are some scales where I think that level of automation is more
overkill then help. In this site the amount of time to duplicate a module
and insert content is negligible. Using a cms to serve a template is smart,
much smarter even than SSI, but requires more involvement on the back end
which isn’t always practical unless you control the back end, which I
don’t.
For a small site like this, Simple Include Pro would let me serve up and
merge the modular data without ever having to touch the back end.
This site would have been an excellent candidate for a CMS, but again I had
no access to the server (other than FTP) and the skill level of the owner
was not sufficient that I could even work out whether his server would
support SSI. Simple Include Pro allowed me to facilitate alterations to the
menu and footer without having to interact with the server for the content.
Strangely, SIP continues to work even though the owner has updated the site
with FWP6. He cannot make a new application of the action, but he can
duplicate an existing item module where it had been previously applied and
it still works. Clearly, had I known he would add so many items in the end
and had I been able to access his server administratively, a cms system
would have made better sense. As it is, I think it’s an extreme example
though of how useful that little action can be.
–
Ernie Simpson
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Todd email@hidden wrote:
Just curious, are you not using some flavor of CMS?
Ah yes, I remember the pen site. But with this new site you again don’t have server access, except for FTP? Were you intentionally given restricted access or are there other reasons? I ask only because it seems strange not to have full backstage access. Then again I don’t know all the details so perhaps there’s a logical reason. What can I say, I’m a curious boy.
I was thinking Pulse would have been a great lightweight CMS solution, but I see your point.
There are some scales where I think that level of automation is more
overkill then help. In this site the amount of time to duplicate a module
and insert content is negligible. Using a cms to serve a template is smart,
much smarter even than SSI, but requires more involvement on the back end
which isn’t always practical unless you control the back end, which I
don’t.
For a small site like this, Simple Include Pro would let me serve up and
merge the modular data without ever having to touch the back end.
This site would have been an excellent candidate for a CMS, but again I had
no access to the server (other than FTP) and the skill level of the owner
was not sufficient that I could even work out whether his server would
support SSI. Simple Include Pro allowed me to facilitate alterations to the
menu and footer without having to interact with the server for the content.
Strangely, SIP continues to work even though the owner has updated the site
with FWP6. He cannot make a new application of the action, but he can
duplicate an existing item module where it had been previously applied and
it still works. Clearly, had I known he would add so many items in the end
and had I been able to access his server administratively, a cms system
would have made better sense. As it is, I think it’s an extreme example
though of how useful that little action can be.
–
Ernie Simpson
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Todd email@hidden wrote:
Just curious, are you not using some flavor of CMS?
