 | | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) I think this is a demonstration of a perfectly good use of frames. Can someone offer a good reason why this site shouldn't use them? (...) Don't make it mixed. Make it so your links in the left frame are actually search queries. (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) (Because people hate frames) (...) Ooo, I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to ponder that idea some more. Steve (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) Those people are silly. :) I'm serious, actually. It's a prejudice spawned by a lot of sites with terrible use of frames. Sure, they're easy to misuse, but that doesn't make all uses bad. (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) No, what makes frames bad is that the browsers don't give any easy way to discover the URL for any but the top frame. This opens the door real wide for banner abuse, and there's nothing you can do on the server end to indicate beneficial (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) I'm not convinced by that. You could say exactly the same thing for images, and it's been a few years since I heard anyone calling for the abolishment of graphics on the web. (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Matthew Miller: [ About <URL:(URL) ] (...) - Indexing in search engines. - Too much work switching between frames (no keybord support for that in Netscrape on *nix). (the latter could be argued to be very individual _and_ subjective) Play well, (...) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) Hmmm. I think people hate the misuse of frames more than they frames per se. Notwithstanding, of course, frames do have icky issues like bookmarking and keyboard focus and all that. But heck, the way you're using frames, it's got a great (...) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) It'd be neat if frames/noframes was an auto-negotiable preference one could set in one's browser, like choice of language for example. Hmmm. Maybe a good suggestion for Mozilla -- I think that could easily be done with the framework of (...) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Matthew Miller: (...) Sounds a lot like on option in the configuration of Opera. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) Didn't we have this debate already? I'm on the other side of the fence from you on this. Nothing has changed since the last time I listed my reasons. (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) Is this an option just to make frames not work, or does it actually ask the server for a non-frames version? (I know that the way frames work allows the index page to have a <NOFRAMES> section. But that's pretty inelegant.) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) Hmm, I don't remember. Possible though. Sorry if we're just rehashing. (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Matthew Miller: (...) It simply shows the NOFRAMES element in stead of the FRAMES element. That is how frames/no-frames negotiation was defined by Netscape. It is sad that we are stuck with this horrible solution just because the programmers at (...) (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) The main problem with this is the way Lynx deals with frames -- it shows you the "NOFRAMES" part, AND gives you links to the frames. So you end up with a (slightly kludgy) way to use the frames, right next to a message from the website telling (...) (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Hash away. Something may have changed and it's good education for those that weren't here to hear both sides. I just feel, as I did before (and my post was shorthand for the longer version) that most anything you could do with frames can be done (...) (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Matthew Miller: (...) I have never found this a problem for anybody but the apparently uneducated author of thoose pages. (...) I find this a larger problem (but it is mostly "solved" by keeping the NOFRAMES content to short insults ;-). (...) Then (...) (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) Why not? It could be done the same way http allows for autonegotiation of languages, image types, etc. (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Matthew Miller: (...) Because we would need a whole different specification and implementation. Frames are bad, because they destroy the addressing scheme of the Web. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) I should do this anyway, and add the code to handle no-frames browser. Thanks for the reminder. Steve (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) I can see this argument more than the others. It would have been nice for there to be a way to give a URL which specifies a frameset with given contents. Hmm. Maybe I'll implement that for my pages which use frames. (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
(...) okay everyone, i've taken my page out of frames, sorry to bring it up. still though what do u think of my page? Alex "I HATE FRAMES! DIE FRAMES, DIE!!!...!!!" Roode (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: web page in frames
|
|
Alex: (...) There is still something fishy if you enter the site through the "official" URL[1], where you have a single frame frameset, which does exactly what you don't want - destroys the addressing scheme. Why not keep the entry page[2] at that (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
