 | | Re: web page in frames —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | 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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | 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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | 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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | 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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Alex Roode
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
