 | | 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)
|
