My sixth article in a 6 part series on Master Pages and SharePoint has been published to www.sharepointmagazine.net. You can view the article here: http://sharepointmagazine.net/technical/development/incorporating-a-master-page-into-a-sharepoint-site-definition-master-pages-and-sharepoint-part-6-of-6.
This article is the sixth part of a larger series of articles:
1. Introduction to Master Pages.
2. Examining the out of the box Master Pages in SharePoint.
3. Developing a custom Master Page for SharePoint.
4. Deploy a Master Page for a production ready system.
5. Customizing the Application.master Page.
6. Incorporating a Master Page into a SharePoint site definition.
2. Examining the out of the box Master Pages in SharePoint.
3. Developing a custom Master Page for SharePoint.
4. Deploy a Master Page for a production ready system.
5. Customizing the Application.master Page.
6. Incorporating a Master Page into a SharePoint site definition.
December 10, 2008 at 4:08 pm
[...] Incorporating a Master Page Into a SharePoint Site Definition (Greg Galipeau) [...]
December 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Master pages in ASP.NET were introduced as template that controls the layout of a site and it can be done for each page in the application. Sharepoint provides aggregation at the site level for all the pages under that site. Question: Does it provides the flexibility for implementing a template at each page. if yes, how?
December 29, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Hi Rocky,
Yes, it does provide that flexibility. The pages in SharePoint use the Page Layout. It is the Page Layout that determines which master page to use. The article here is just showing people how to use a master page with the default page layout. I don’t really go into implementing more page layouts (that is another article all together). But, if you do implement more page layouts, you can point them to different master pages. Here is the Microsoft article explaining the page layout model: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms544928.aspx
Greg
February 27, 2009 at 10:56 am
Greg, the link in your original article is wrong. The link text is right, but the link url is for part 4
.b
February 28, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Thanks furuknap! I have fixed the link now.