 | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) how so? should I put in every page in every frameset a check to make sure I'm still within it? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here... (...) what about using up their bandwidth? (...) I'm not saying it's never ok - in a lot of cases, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Outlook Express 5.0 Time?
|
|
To All, I have been playing around with Microsoft Outlook 5.0, and I have to say, it seems to work better than Netscape Communicator 4.7 so far. Anyway, all the incoming mail and outgoing mail seems to be an hour off. Is there a way to change it? My (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Dan: (...) I disagree! (and I think we will have to leave it at that) (...) That is a part of the error in the FRAME construction. (...) Then I will consider to drop the "probably". (...) The question is when it is abuse... Todd has the images on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) I think a web SITE is supposed to be able to stand alone... A page is just a part of it - it could be only one frame out of a complete frameset... (...) I think Matt was refering to the quote at the bottom, shamelessly stolen from (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Matthew: (...) A web page is supposed to be able to stand alone (of cause with all its links). If it can't, the site designer has misunderstood his medium (IMNSHO). (...) Probably illegal, but since the author doesn't seem to pretend that the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: atari 800 web server
|
|
(...) Well, lookie there. You're a quickie. Congrats. :) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) A clarification on this one: usually the point of such pages is to preload data for following pages, or maybe to do some autodetection code and not worry about it later. So while linking past this may seem like you're doing people a favor, you (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) Well, if you link directly to things deep within a site, you're not really respecting the user experience the site designer had in mind. That may or may not be impolite. (In fact, I'd argue that on a well designed site, it probably isn't.) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GUI LUGNET streaming news client in Java (Was: Pseudo-streaming live news (was: Re: Monitor Page))
|
|
(...) Sorry, me no Java. Plus, I've been working on that low-budget VB-based avid client. Steve (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) Because it might actually be impolite! :) (Matthew didn't say that it was -always- impolte.) I can think of a several cases where it would be (IMHO) impolite to the owner of the site: 1. Where the site specifically asks for it not to occur. (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Ben: (...) A website with "click agree pages" that can be bypassed by something as simple as a bookmark are defect, and nobody in their sane mind would ever admit having seen such a "click agree page". The world wide web works by URL's, and it is a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) One reason is that it could possibly by-pass any relevant disclaimers that the owner of the web site puts on the front page. Are you still bound to the agreement made when you click "I agree" if you never see that page? Ben Roller (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Matthew: (...) Nice to hear that the web can continue to work in the US too. Why do you write that it may be impolite to link directly to a page? I find it most impolite _not_ to link directly to the relevant page. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
(...) Excellent. Thanks for posting this! --Todd (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
|
Well, I for one am glad to see this: (URL). While it may be impolite, linking to something deep within a website is not illegal. (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek) !
|
| |
| | Re: next meeting - Saturday, 8 April ???
|
|
(...) [action type="give_beanie"] Here, Franklin. [/action] -Cheese (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GUI LUGNET streaming news client in Java (Was: Pseudo-streaming live news (was: Re: Monitor Page))
|
|
(...) Nah, nothing as heinous as a stack error - it was the NoDefClass (?) error - basically it wasn't finding the ice stuff. I have some free time tomorrow - so I *will* get it working, and post a fix here.. it's probably something *really* simple. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GUI LUGNET streaming news client in Java (Was: Pseudo-streaming live news (was: Re: Monitor Page))
|
|
(...) heh, that occured to me... while I dislike java, I'll give it a shot :) (...) yes, but in that case, you increase the delay from the time the message is posted, and the time the client displays it... it'll be 2-10 minutes, assuming the 1/5 min (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GUI LUGNET streaming news client in Java (Was: Pseudo-streaming live news (was: Re: Monitor Page))
|
|
(...) Whoops, good point! After I implement a spooling server, of course. :-, (...) Mmmmmm. That'd be nice. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GUI LUGNET streaming news client in Java (Was: Pseudo-streaming live news (was: Re: Monitor Page))
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jeremy H. Sproat writes: bite? (...) or, have it connect to your spooling message server... (...) nope, though Todd said it's possible to have it in the avid.cgi output... I was thinking of how we could remotely vote... (...) (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
