 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
