Loading different pages in an iframe

[dorayme]

Please see my other post above. Obviously you are all looking to the wrong
site as the domain seems not replaced yet.

www.iae.nl/users/fnauta/fokkenauta is a direct link to the correct site.

Fair enough. Do say if you are interested in comments about your site
from a technical point of view beyond the limited issue you mentioned
originally.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

snip

Javascript is a very versatile and useful language whose power has been
abused in the past. Safeguards have been increasingly added over the
years, but, unfortunately, there are still those out there who would
use it intrusively or downright maliciously. One thing to remember:
visitors to your site may have it turned off so your page should be
adequately prepared to deal with that.

Anyway, best wishes on your endeavor, Nederlander, and I hope you don't
get any splinters in your feet...

--
Neredbojias
People who live in glass houses must feel funny peeing.
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

Hi Neredbojias,

Thanks!. I only hope that you looked at the correct website as I changed the
domain www.fokkenauta.nl only yesterday to my new site.
A direct link to the new site is www.ise.nl/users/fnauta/fokkenauta.

Yeah, that's the only disadvantage of Javascript, that people may have
turned it off in their browsers.

Cheers,
Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Fair enough. Do say if you are interested in comments about your site
from a technical point of view beyond the limited issue you mentioned
originally.

Yes, I am always interest in comments. As I am not a professional web
designer, I can always learn from other opinions.
So, please do.

Fokke

 

[dorayme]

....

....

Yes, I am always interest in comments. As I am not a professional web
designer, I can always learn from other opinions.
So, please do.

Well, just a few things.

First, best to have a doctype. 4.01 Strict should serve you well.

Second, best to validate your html. Try:

<http://validator.w3.org/>

You will pick up all sorts of mistakes and trouble there.

Third, find out about the value of separating author preferred styles
out from your HTML by assigning all the styles to a CSS style sheet.

The website

<http://htmldog.com/>

and in particular:

<http://htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/>

There are issues about frames, but all the above are more important to
begin with.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yes, I am always interest in comments....

Argh.... Now you have opened Pandora's box...

 

[Fokke Nauta]

...


Well, just a few things.

First, best to have a doctype. 4.01 Strict should serve you well.

You are right!
I have not noticed that the html editor which I am using now, does not apply
a doctype tag.
So I had to do it by hand.

Second, best to validate your html. Try:

<http://validator.w3.org/>

You will pick up all sorts of mistakes and trouble there.

Well, most of all is that it stumbles over a lot of attributes, of which
this site thinks they are in capitals, but they are not. All of my tags are
in undercase.
So - I don't understand these errors.
Concerning alt tags with images: I never use the alt-tag with images unless
I want to show some text. The missing of alt-tags here seems to be a problem
here as well.
How serious can I take this vaildator?

Third, find out about the value of separating author preferred styles
out from your HTML by assigning all the styles to a CSS style sheet.

I am using an external style sheet.

The website

<http://htmldog.com/>

and in particular:

<http://htmldog.com/guides/htmlbeginner/>

There are issues about frames, but all the above are more important to
begin with.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Yes, I am always interest in comments....

Argh.... Now you have opened Pandora's box...

I've seen already something ...

Fokke

 

[Ari Heino]

Fokke Nauta kirjoitti seuraavasti:

Concerning alt tags with images: I never use the alt-tag with images unless
I want to show some text. The missing of alt-tags here seems to be a problem
here as well.

Text is for showing text, not images. Alt texts are there to describe
the contents of the images if someone can't or doesn't want to see the
images. For layout purposes, use background images via css.

How serious can I take this vaildator?

Very. Alt is a mandatory attribute for img tags. Read the specs.

 

[Ari Heino]

Fokke Nauta kirjoitti seuraavasti:

But ... The domain www.fokkenauta.nl pointed to my old website, which is a
frameset indeed. I changed it only yesterday. Could it be that you are still
looking to my old website?

Dunno. I still see the frameset.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Fokke Nauta kirjoitti seuraavasti:

Dunno. I still see the frameset.

OK. Have a look at www.iae.nl/users/fnauta/fokkenauta
Doesn't look good in Mozilla, as I see right now :-(
Have to work on that.

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Hi all,

I have a page (main.htm) with a few links. I want each link to open the
same page (index2.htm) which contains an iframe. This is not a problem,
but I want each link to open that page with another iframe loading. So -
for example - the 1st link on main.htm opens index2.htm, which loads
3rdpage_1.htm in the iframe.. The 2nd links on main.htm opens index2.htm
as well, but loading with 3rdpage_2.htm in the iframe. And so on.
Can this be done? And if so, how can I manage this?

Thanks in advance.

With best regards,
Fokke Nauta

Hey guys, I see something really weird here.
The code of the page at www.fokkenauta.nl is different from the code of the
actual page, which is at www.iae.users/fnauta/fokkenauta.
At www.fokkenauta.nl it shows a frame indeed, so now I realize where you are
talking about. At www.iae.users/fnauta/fokkenauta.there is the real page.
Something is wrong with the domain www.fokkenauta.nl . It shows different
code than the actual page.

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Hey guys, I see something really weird here.
The code of the page at www.fokkenauta.nl is different from the code of
the actual page, which is at www.iae.users/fnauta/fokkenauta.
At www.fokkenauta.nl it shows a frame indeed, so now I realize where you
are talking about. At www.iae.users/fnauta/fokkenauta.there is the real
page.
Something is wrong with the domain www.fokkenauta.nl . It shows different
code than the actual page.

Fokke

In my redirection menu I ticked the box "redirection old style" and now you
can see the real code at www.fokkenauta.nl.
Sorry for this. I did not realize it would turn the code into a frameset.

Fokke

 

[dorayme]

Well, most of all is that it stumbles over a lot of attributes, of which
this site thinks they are in capitals, but they are not. All of my tags are
in undercase.
So - I don't understand these errors.

Now that you have put in a strict doctype, what errors do you see and
don't understand. Especially after putting in alt into images. And after
fixing up the trouble with your server not specifying a character
encoding.

<http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/#Slide0250>

At the least, put in:

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

Concerning alt tags with images: I never use the alt-tag with images unless
I want to show some text. The missing of alt-tags here seems to be a problem
here as well.
How serious can I take this vaildator?

It is the main one to take seriously.

I am using an external style sheet.

There are errors there too, see:

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>

You HTML is *full* of presentational instructions and so you are not
keeping to a minimum author preferred styles from your HTML:

<table align="center" background="images/main.jpg" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="525" width="980"> and <p
align="right"> ...

Thanks anyway.

Anyway?

Vot? You are not going to follow ze orders I hav given you! <g>

 

[Ari Heino]

Fokke Nauta kirjoitti seuraavasti:

Have a look at www.iae.nl/users/fnauta/fokkenauta
Doesn't look good in Mozilla, as I see right now :-(
Have to work on that.

Yes. I have some ideas but I have to go to sleep now!

 

[Bergamot]

Alt texts are there to describe
the contents of the images

That is incorrect. Alt text is a textual *replacement* for the image,
which is not the same as a description. For photographic content it
might well end up a description, but that doesn't make it so for all images.

You wouldn't use "spacer" as alt text for one of those archaic spacer
gifs, would you? That would be a description, but incorrect alt text.

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Fokke Nauta kirjoitti seuraavasti:

Yes. I have some ideas but I have to go to sleep now!

Goodmorning then

I noticed that it was the doctype that messed Firefox up.
I left out the doctype and now it worked well.
This is not the way it should, but for now it is best. I am working on it.

The doctype I used:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

or

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN">

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

<cut>

I found out that the frameset everyone was writing about, was caused by the
domain redirection. You did not see the original page, but a frameset
indeed. I changed the redirection type and now you will see the original
code.

Now that you have put in a strict doctype, what errors do you see and
don't understand. Especially after putting in alt into images. And after
fixing up the trouble with your server not specifying a character
encoding.

When I specified a doctype, Firefox did not show the page correctly and I
lost the transparency in the scrollbar track.
I used:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Tried this one as well:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN">

Because Firefox messed up and I lost the scrollbar track transparency, I
left out the doctype again.
I know this is not correct but I don't know how to get it right with
Firefox.

<http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/#Slide0250>

At the least, put in:

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

in the <head>

I did

It is the main one to take seriously.

I put in the alt tags as well

There are errors there too, see:

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>

Funny enough all the scrollbar arguments are incorrect.
However, they are used on professional websites. That's where I got them
from.
And they give a nice feature to the scrollbar.
So - I keep these.

You HTML is *full* of presentational instructions and so you are not
keeping to a minimum author preferred styles from your HTML:

<table align="center" background="images/main.jpg" border="0"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="525" width="980"> and <p
align="right"> ...

I use my style sheet only for text and colour purposes, not for cell
properties.
I will have a look into this and see what I can replace to the style sheet.

Anyway?

Vot? You are not going to follow ze orders I hav given you! <g>

Nein, Herr Oberleutnant. Not all of them

Fokke

 

[Fokke Nauta]

You concede too much. The description that you might "well end up with"
as 'replacement text' for a normal realistic photograph (to take an
example) should be a description of the scene depicted and not a
description of the photograph itself, a distinct difference.

If you stick to your guns, Bergamot, you can keep your position pure.
Let's us take an abstract painting now, as an opposite sort of case
where there is nothing the image realistically depicts. Even here, I
would say, one could argue that what is needed is a replacement text.
Perhaps a some poetic remark that replaces the abstract painting. Or
simply some description of an abstraction. Again, a distinct difference.

archaic spacer gifs?

I thought I make a new design, based upon a complex table construction. I
gave all the cells the correct width and height properties but still it was
not correct. Until I put in spacer gifs. From that moment the layout was OK.
If they are archaic (could well be, in that case I may be archaic as well
, how else should I have achieved a correct layout?

Fokke

 

[dorayme]

archaic spacer gifs?

I thought I make a new design, based upon a complex table construction. I
gave all the cells the correct width and height properties but still it was
not correct. Until I put in spacer gifs. From that moment the layout was OK.
If they are archaic (could well be, in that case I may be archaic as well
, how else should I have achieved a correct layout?

Things are not as simple as they might seem. Here is your page on my
screen when I am a bit tired and have to enlarge the text:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/fokke.jpg>

The fact is that if you are going to use tables for layout and want
something reasonably precise that does not break on other people's
computers and platforms and browsers, you need to be very careful about
dimensioning your boxes. You use pixels. Text grows to a different drum
beat.

I suggest you read that tute url I gave you to get a bit of a feeling
for a different way to design.

You might be amused by:

<http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/everything.html>

 

[Fokke Nauta]

Things are not as simple as they might seem. Here is your page on my
screen when I am a bit tired and have to enlarge the text:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/fokke.jpg>

Thanks. That looks horrible indeed.

The fact is that if you are going to use tables for layout and want
something reasonably precise that does not break on other people's
computers and platforms and browsers, you need to be very careful about
dimensioning your boxes. You use pixels. Text grows to a different drum
beat.

OK. So?

I suggest you read that tute url I gave you to get a bit of a feeling
for a different way to design.

I'll read it through, definitely.
You are right. Creating a web site is more complex that it looks on first
sight.

You might be amused by:

<http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/everything.html>

Not amused, really. But I realized I am way behind with using tables for
layouts.
I might need some classes again ...

Fokke