Redirecting to the index.html page

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Raymond SCHMIT, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....

    Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
    http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm

    with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
    site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html

    I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
    index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
    from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
    exemple-balade.htm ...

    A possible solution could be a javascript asking if "interested by the
    'menu' of the site ?" ... this question only present if the
    "exemple-balade.htm" page in in the "root window".

    Some ideas will be usefull on: what's the best way of solving this
    problem ?
     
    Raymond SCHMIT, Apr 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Raymond SCHMIT wrote:
    > I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
    >
    > Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
    > http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
    >
    > with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
    > site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
    >
    > I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
    > index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
    > from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
    > exemple-balade.htm ...
    >
    > A possible solution could be a javascript asking if "interested by the
    > 'menu' of the site ?" ... this question only present if the
    > "exemple-balade.htm" page in in the "root window".
    >
    > Some ideas will be usefull on: what's the best way of solving this
    > problem ?
    >


    You are not going to like it. Answer, don't use frames. It is the
    classic problem with frames is only the outer frameset is public and you
    cannot bookmark internal pages without JavaScript tricks...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:

    > I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
    >
    > Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
    > http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
    >
    > with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
    > site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
    >
    > I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
    > index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
    > from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
    > exemple-balade.htm ...


    Not if you do it right and make sure the link is to a frameset that
    contains the navigation. You have two options here, one easy and one a
    bit of a drag if you have a lot of pages. Take the easy way first: make
    the link to the frameset with the home page. They can get back to the
    page they are interested in from there (and also see the full glory of
    your offerings at the same time). The more laborious way, which rather
    spoils the advantage of frames is to make a frameset for each possible
    combination of frames. You then link to the appropriate one on each
    frame.

    Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
    I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
    keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
    You are a true blue.

    I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
    various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
    po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.

    PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your use
    of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
    membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #3
  4. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Jay <> wrote:

    > >I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    > >$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
    > >various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
    > >po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
    > >
    > >PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your use
    > >of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
    > >membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.

    >
    > Take a check? :)


    I am so sorry Ed, but no. It is a costly business cashing in O/S
    cheques. However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain
    samples from scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling
    experiments to understand earthlings better.)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #4
  5. Raymond SCHMIT

    rf Guest

    dorayme <> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
    :

    > Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
    > I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
    > keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
    > You are a true blue.
    >
    > I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    > $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
    > various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
    > po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.


    Do you include in this Framepeace rubbish the fact that the people who last
    century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six months
    to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?

    --
    Richard
    Killing all threads involving google groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
     
    rf, Apr 22, 2008
    #5
  6. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <5_aPj.3790$>,
    rf <> wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
    > :
    >
    > > Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
    > > I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
    > > keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
    > > You are a true blue.
    > >
    > > I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    > > $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
    > > various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
    > > po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.

    >
    > Do you include in this Framepeace rubbish the fact that the people who last
    > century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six months
    > to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?


    Yes I do. Very much so. They are the biggest traitors of all, the most
    callous of the callous. Framepeace has a very special antipathy towards
    them, their crime is greater than yours and Jonathan's and mine for not
    using frames. Because they were *the parents*. For God's sake, Richard,
    have you no morality at all? Have you lost all your moral bearings, man?

    Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
    right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
    fucking respect for these things, mate.

    BTW, I reached for my James Bond style handbag (it has high tech built
    in devices like his car) when I saw the word "rubbish" in the above.
    Idiotically I like your direct ways and in a moment of weakness awarded
    you more points than you probably deserve, you old rascal. Please don't
    take advantage of this to insult me. I cannot help it that you refuse
    point blank to take idiocy seriously. Grow down!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #6
  7. dorayme wrote:

    > I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    > $US10 dollars to join up.


    He can't join... he already committed frameicide!

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 22, 2008
    #7
  8. Ed Jay wrote:

    > dorayme scribed:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> Ed Jay <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> >I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    >>> >$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
    >>> >various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
    >>> >po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
    >>> >
    >>> >PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your
    >>> >use of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
    >>> >membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.
    >>>
    >>> Take a check? :)

    >>
    >>I am so sorry Ed, but no. It is a costly business cashing in O/S cheques.

    >
    > Not a problem; the check wouldn't be cashable anyway.
    >
    >>However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain samples from
    >>scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling experiments to
    >>understand earthlings better.)


    "Our Credit Manager's name is Helen Waite. If you want credit you can go
    to Helen Waite."


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #8
  9. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    >> $US10 dollars to join up.

    >
    > He can't join... he already committed frameicide!


    But...but...he shouldn't be convicted if he was framed.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #9
  10. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    >>> $US10 dollars to join up.

    >>
    >> He can't join... he already committed frameicide!

    >
    > But...but...he shouldn't be convicted if he was framed.


    He committed frameicide, Blinky. He's DEAD!

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 22, 2008
    #10
  11. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <5_aPj.3790$>,
    > > rf <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> dorayme <> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
    > >> :
    > >>
    > >>> Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
    > >>> I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
    > >>> keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
    > >>> You are a true blue.
    > >>>
    > >>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
    > >>> $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
    > >>> various species of HTML,
    > >> Do you include in your venerable and worthy Framepeace the fact that the people who
    > >> last
    > >> century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six
    > >> months
    > >> to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?

    > >
    > > Yes I do. Very much so. They are the biggest traitors of all... to
    > > do this to their own child is unforgivable...


    >
    > Yes, yes. But. Can you in a succinct way, tersely, explain why frames
    > are good? Why they should be used? Can you, again, succinctly, counter
    > all the "frames are bad" arguments? Logically? Tersely?
    >


    Ed, in a word, no. Who would argue these days that frames are actually
    good in the sense of 'to be recommended' for a new site? Not me. I am
    only an honorary idiot. Yes, I know, I could have fooled you.

    The arguments against making a website with frames these days are mostly
    good, some are even pretty devastating (where a big site is concerned).

    > I ask this not out of idle curiosity. I ask this in order to get a
    > non-earthly view on the topic without the hyperbole and because I enjoy
    > your posts.
    >


    Without hyperbole? Jesus Christ! That is pretty demanding Ed!

    I would have thought I had made it pretty plain that it is not so much
    frames I am defending but the attempt from the pulpit of this church to
    completely annihilate the poor things from the wild. This is a vicious
    and nasty thing to want and Framepeace aims to stop it!

    King's Regulations are all very well (See the marvelous 1965 film The
    Hill, Sean Connery, Harry Andrews for a nice reference to KR. An
    absolute classic by Lumet (who has a film out right now, btw, he is
    still going and he is very good!)) but there is a larger view:

    The larger view is to welcome a bit of variety in website species to
    allow some ancient forms to persist for our delight and education. They
    do no harm, especially if they are done well. Have you got the idea of
    them being done well? That they can be done well? That it is important
    not to attack the weaker types of examples. This is called avoiding a
    setting up strawmen.

    Hey Ed! How am I going for succinctness? Have I room for more?
    </particularly evil grin>

    > I once had a Web site that was "framed." It was a huge mess to
    > administer and manage. And I found that it suffered from most every
    > fault claimed in the "frames are evil" arguments. Hence, I no longer do
    > that.
    >
    > So, I'm eager to hear your defense of frames. Again. Please!
    > Succinctly. I do understand that may be very un-Martian of me to
    > request of you. Still. Please?


    I can certainly think of some good features for them, some positively
    good, some negatively good.

    But I know you are all asleep now so I will simply stop.

    Let the odd Frenchman have a framed site.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #11
  12. dorayme wrote:

    >
    > Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
    > right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
    > fucking respect for these things, mate.


    Good heavens. I had mistaken you for the anti-Boji but now I see you and
    he are in one and the same camp. Pardon me while I douse my ears in ammonia.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Apr 22, 2008
    #12
  13. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
    > > right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
    > > fucking respect for these things, mate.

    >
    > Good heavens. I had mistaken you for the anti-Boji but now I see you and
    > he are in one and the same camp. Pardon me while I douse my ears in ammonia.


    You have to understand that when talking to Australians, this type of
    emphasis is an accepted and expected communication device. I am sorry
    about your ears. Surely you need not use so harsh a chemical on them? At
    least for so mild a deviation from International Moral English.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #13
  14. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > > I would have thought I had made it pretty plain

    >
    > No, actually, you didn't make anything plain.


    It is perhaps because you have not got the conception that it may be bad
    for something to be widespread yet good for it to exist without being
    widespread.

    If someone already has a framed site, if it is not a big site, if they
    can be encouraged to make it better than it is, this is not such a bad
    thing. It is not the end of the world as we know it. The way some folk
    here talk about frames (often so bitterly, with such vehemence), you
    would never guess that the world could actually continue on quite well
    with a few of them scattered here and there.

    Christians are pretty well wrong about all the most fundamental
    questions that humans can ask and it would be a very bad thing if all
    the lecturers or masters in your uni or school were priests. But it
    could well be a good thing for just some of them to be. Is this
    something you cannot grasp as an analogy? Something that makes my words
    and thoughts so obscure to you?

    A society is richer for having different cultures and beliefs. That is
    all Ed. there is nothing mysterious about it. Nothing vague. You used
    frames yourself so you must be aware of their good points? And you
    would, by now, be aware of the best practice of working with frames?
    Yes? They have their coolnesses. And you know not to use them now.
    Nothing the least mysterious.

    Still not plain enough? How about: I have a 37 year old rust bucket car.
    I think it is nice to have some old cars on the road. The same with
    frames. It is nice to have a few around.

    What you take for obfuscation I take to be an inability on my part to
    show you a whole different world.

    Be careful in these newsgroups Ed, you are a bit innocent I fear and
    maybe I need to protect you. Do not get swallowed up by the railway line
    narrow othodoxies that can prevail. I know you are a young man, not even
    60. If anyone crosses you, let me know.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #14
  15. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns9A87D8BECEF23neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
    Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.com/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

    > On 21 Apr 2008, Ed Jay <> wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme scribed:
    > >>However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain
    > >>samples from scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling
    > >>experiments to understand earthlings better.)

    > >
    > > You can't fool me. It's obvious that you want to assimilate me.

    >
    > Beware; watch out for dorayme! Here's a picture of her in her native
    > habitat:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/4yk4hz
    >
    > Notice the evil sneer for the poor critter just out of camera range. It's
    > libel to get messy.


    Your use of "libel" is prophetic. I have instructed my lawyers already.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #15
  16. Ed Mullen wrote:

    > Oooo! I foresee a lively discussion coming! Bear in mind, my wife of 35
    > years is from French Canada. So, well, ah, err ...


    When she cusses you out, does she still slip back into French? :)

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 22, 2008
    #16
  17. On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, (Raymond
    SCHMIT) wrote:

    >I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
    >
    >Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
    >http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
    >
    >with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
    >site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
    >
    >I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
    >index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
    >from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
    >exemple-balade.htm ...
    >
    >A possible solution could be a javascript asking if "interested by the
    >'menu' of the site ?" ... this question only present if the
    >"exemple-balade.htm" page in in the "root window".
    >
    >Some ideas will be usefull on: what's the best way of solving this
    >problem ?


    Thanks for all suggestions ...and diversions :)
    Finally i solved my problem ... euh... gracefully by using the
    end-user brain instead of some tricky javascript or php contructs.

    Except of the menu,title and index pages.....I put at the end of the
    page who it's better to not see it alone the following:
    If the menu is not visible, click HERE to get it.
    The link under the word "HERE" points to "index.html"

    (You may see the result ... by using
    http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
    and clicking on the words ICI or MENU at the end of the page
    - when you see the menu, it's stupid to continue clicking on the link
    at the end of the page)

    Notes for some contributors:
    I did not have any problem with frame except this one.
    I did not know how to do a simple menu and simple presentation without
    using frames.
    In my opinion....not using frames oblige me to put on each page the
    title and the menu .... 33 times wasted spaces if the site have 32
    pages.
     
    Raymond SCHMIT, Apr 22, 2008
    #17
  18. Raymond SCHMIT

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, (Raymond
    > SCHMIT) wrote:
    >
    > Notes for some contributors:
    > I did not have any problem with frame except this one.


    Which does not mean other people do not have problems. There are
    bookmarking problems for your users.

    > I did not know how to do a simple menu and simple presentation without
    > using frames.


    This is not hard to do by use of what is called "includes". Google that
    one up. You can get help with them here if you have difficulties. To be
    brief, you stick on each page a short string that looks something like
    this:

    <?php include '/myDomain/includes/nav.inc'); ?>

    in the place where you want the menu to appear. Your menu will be just
    one simple text file called nav.inc and it will be placed on the page
    before it is delivered to the user.

    The feature of your frames menu is that it does not scroll with the
    scrollng of your contents. This is in many ways an excellent feature.
    You will lose this feature unless you adopt a device to "fix" the menu.
    CSS 'position: fixed;' can do it but there are cross browser problems.


    > In my opinion....not using frames oblige me to put on each page the
    > title and the menu .... 33 times wasted spaces if the site have 32
    > pages.


    You will, as a rational person, be changing this opinion from now on
    then...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2008
    #18
  19. On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:15:09 +1000, dorayme
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, (Raymond
    >> SCHMIT) wrote:
    >>
    >> Notes for some contributors:
    >> I did not have any problem with frame except this one.

    >
    >Which does not mean other people do not have problems. There are
    >bookmarking problems for your users.
    >
    >> I did not know how to do a simple menu and simple presentation without
    >> using frames.

    >
    >This is not hard to do by use of what is called "includes". Google that
    >one up. You can get help with them here if you have difficulties. To be
    >brief, you stick on each page a short string that looks something like
    >this:
    >
    ><?php include '/myDomain/includes/nav.inc'); ?>
    >


    This method will download the menu *and* the title when you just need
    the page ...and more ....you need a webhosting offering php ...(my isp
    refuse to furnish me php if i don't want to pay more...)
     
    Raymond SCHMIT, Apr 23, 2008
    #19
  20. On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:05:22 GMT, (Raymond
    SCHMIT) wrote:

    > ><?php include '/myDomain/includes/nav.inc'); ?>

    >
    > This method will download the menu *and* the title when you just need
    > the page ...and more ....you need a webhosting offering php ...(my isp
    > refuse to furnish me php if i don't want to pay more...)


    Does your ISP support SSI ? This will allow you to include files in a
    web page. The web pages normally have an .shtml extension and this
    causes Apache to scan the file and react to a limited set of commands
    such as including another file.
    --
    Steven
     
    Steven Saunderson, Apr 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve C. Orr, MCSD

    Re: redirecting from .aspx page to .asp page

    Steve C. Orr, MCSD, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    415
    Steve C. Orr, MCSD
    Jul 15, 2003
  2. Jeff Trotman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
    Jeff Trotman
    Jul 16, 2003
  3. Loui Mercieca
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,982
    S. Justin Gengo
    Sep 3, 2005
  4. karthikeyavenkat
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    613
    Bryce
    Mar 17, 2005
  5. Tomasz Chmielewski

    sorting index-15, index-9, index-110 "the human way"?

    Tomasz Chmielewski, Mar 4, 2008, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    315
    Tomasz Chmielewski
    Mar 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page