K
Karl Groves
SpaceGirl said:
Guess you didn't see the rest of the thread, huh?
-Karl
Guess you didn't see the rest of the thread, huh?
-Karl
S
SpaceGirl
Karl said:
Only too late *sighs*. Those who know me from over on AWW, that was a
'pre coffee error'
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
K
Karl Groves
SpaceGirl said:Only too late *sighs*. Those who know me from over on AWW, that was a
'pre coffee error'
Its all good.
I was definitely wrong in many areas. My experience with SSI is extremely
limited and most of the information I put down was from other sources who
didn't seem to know any more on the subject than I did.
-Karl
K
Kris
Karl Groves said:
You do raise some concerns though; i recognized many issues I had to
learn to deal with, the first time I started using includes.
Take a recurring menu of links. It is included in documents all over the
site, from the front page to pages tucked away 5 directories deep. How
is one going to make those links in the menu work? Relative to the
document they are called from means that they have to cross an uncertain
amount of directories, different for each document they are included in.
Two options remain: absolute URLs (http://domain.com/path/to/file) and
relative to site root (/path/to/file).
Both have a downside: they have to be in place on a webserver before you
can see them function. During development, this requires uploading the
files to a webserver before being able to test the links. Links relative
to site root have the advantage that they function regardless of the
domain they are uploaded to, but that's all.
Since (I suspect) most developers who start out with includes are used
to testing their pages on a local filesystem instead of a server, this
is definately something they should think about.
S
SpaceGirl
Kris said:
.... scripting of course... you actually 'create' the links using script.
For example, under IIS/AS:
x = Request.ServerVariables("PATH_TRANSLATED")
would give x the local path to the file in which the script is run. it's
very easy to generate relative paths on the fly by simply asking the
server, "hey, where am I?"
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
D
David Dorward
Kris said:
Or running a local webserver for testing.
K
Kris
Or running a local webserver for testing.[/QUOTE]
Which is what I do myself, at home and at the office.
Freakishly convenient.
S
Sam Hughes
Here is another gem, on his résumé page,
<http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon/rescopy2.html>:
<!LINK rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="c:/windows/desktop/galleryfix/jan29style.css">
<!LINK rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="c:/windows/desktop/galleryupdate/2feb1style.css">
<!LINK rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="c:/windows/desktop/galleryupdate/3feb1style.css">
At least we now know where his web site is stored on his computer. :/
T
Toby Inkster
Sam said:
And that he almost certainly uses one of Windows 98 or Windows ME. (On
NT-based systems, the desktop is kept in the user's profile directory. And
by default Windows 95 puts itself in "c:\Win95\". Earlier versions of
Windows didn't have a desktop as such. Theoretically it could be
Linux/Unix of course, as "c:/windows/desktop/galleryupdate/" would be
allowed as a directory structure.)
D
...D.
Hurray. I am not alone. Since i posted less than a week ago about me being a
2 or 3 weeks student of HTML, who knew squat (my 1st website), and that I was
looking at a template that used frames, & that I liked it (scrolling text in
one frame for one thing), all I have gotten is negative responses. It';s nice
to see that there are still one or two people out of several million that is
pro-frames. I knew they couldn't be THAT evil.
It's not that I am so pro-frames, but for what I want to accomplished I can do
it with HTML only & frames. Otherwise I have to get into another coding
language, and at this stage, it isn't something I want to even look into. I
can get free templates that use frames to work with, & I am working on one
right now.
I will have an "out" (link) at the bottom of each frame in little text in each
frame that launches my website, just in case. I will put some kind of code in
the noframes clause... So what's the big deal? if someone ends up in a frame
they can launch the whole website from it. Google will see each frame as a
separate URL.. fine.. more free advertising ?? I am not sure how Google
works..
....D.
K
Karl Groves
...D. said:
And therein lies your credibility in the matter.
The hard truth is, you *will* see the error of your ways. You can do it now,
by accepting the opinion of experienced professionals, or you can come to
the conclusion on your own once you get more experience. Either way it will
happen.
-Karl
R
rf
....D. wrote
Read the full thread.
This bloke advocated the use of frames because did not know that there are
better ways of doing things. His premises ware incorrect from the very
beginning.
He has been roundly flamed for it (and has generated quite an amusing tread
to boot), as will you if you persist in thinking that frames have any
universal (*) use.
(*) There are some very specialized cases where frames may be appropriate. I
even use frames myself. However, this use is not on a web page. It is a
windows database application that happens to use the internet explorer
browser control for its GUI. It looks a bit like windows explorer, which one
could argue looks a bit like a frameset.
Read the full thread.
This bloke advocated the use of frames because did not know that there are
better ways of doing things. His premises ware incorrect from the very
beginning.
He has been roundly flamed for it (and has generated quite an amusing tread
to boot), as will you if you persist in thinking that frames have any
universal (*) use.
(*) There are some very specialized cases where frames may be appropriate. I
even use frames myself. However, this use is not on a web page. It is a
windows database application that happens to use the internet explorer
browser control for its GUI. It looks a bit like windows explorer, which one
could argue looks a bit like a frameset.
D
...D.
I should have no doubt , with all of the flack, that frames have just about
got to be the most evil thing that has appeared on the earth since
Christianity launched Satan.. What I don't understand is then how they were
once something that was actually used. Or that is what I have picked up. I
have no basis... A lot of "frames are evil" talk, but that's just what they
say. I have gathered that someone could end up in a frame - ok I will have an
out. Or someone has a browser (from 1995?) that does not support frames (I do
not care an atom about non-computers & their browsing capabilities). OK, so
there must be much much much more that is so bad about frames. I've got to
know then... (??) I can deal with those 2 things I mention. Are they harder
to maintain? Or it must be a huge % of users who cannot use frames? What's
the main thing? or is it just a combination of many little things?
....D.
R
rf
....D.
[questions why frames are bad]
Next time you see somebody here provide the "frames are evil" list of links
have a look at them.
My major gripe against frames is that they fail the telephone test.
You have just found a great source of sexy bras. You ring up your girlfriend
to tell her about it.
Without frames:
Go to www dot example dot com slash shop (yep thats right) slash bras slash
sexy. Look good don't they.
With frames:
Go to www dot example dot com Are you there? Ok now press the shop button
halfway down the left of the screen. No, not that one, the one above that
green line. Ok, got that? . Now press the bras button. No, that was
knickers, you want the bras button. Got it? You should see sexy. What, you
only see re-inforced?
Ah forget it.
[questions why frames are bad]
Next time you see somebody here provide the "frames are evil" list of links
have a look at them.
My major gripe against frames is that they fail the telephone test.
You have just found a great source of sexy bras. You ring up your girlfriend
to tell her about it.
Without frames:
Go to www dot example dot com slash shop (yep thats right) slash bras slash
sexy. Look good don't they.
With frames:
Go to www dot example dot com Are you there? Ok now press the shop button
halfway down the left of the screen. No, not that one, the one above that
green line. Ok, got that? . Now press the bras button. No, that was
knickers, you want the bras button. Got it? You should see sexy. What, you
only see re-inforced?
Ah forget it.
K
Karl Groves
...D. said:
It appears that you have severe reading comprehension problems.
The problems with frames are well documented, and posted to this newsgroup
ad nauseum.
If you choose to ignore them or pretend they don't exist then that's your
prerogative, but they will always be there and your denial won't change a
thing.
-Karl
D
...D.
Karl Groves said:
Well there it is again. Jeeesus. You could as easily have posted four
fvcking sentences telling me four damned examples about what is so bad about
them.
Since I am relatively new to this newsgroup, how far back do I engage my
newsgroup reader to collect old headers?
I can see now that I'll get a more helpful reaction at a website with their
own little newsgroups rather than with this bunch.
I see some major companies using frames. Not a lot, but some. I just noticed
my bank uses frames when logged into my account & checking on things. I just
saw yesterday a site - Lamborghini cars of all things. It offers both a
frames & non-frames choice. Though I don't see much of a need for it as I
don't see page changes. http://www.lambocars.com/ .
Please don't bother to answer. I am deleting this newsgroup. I'll find
answers more easily other places. Though it shouldn't have to be that way
with Usenet & newsgroups.
....D.
D
David Dorward
....D. said:
Old enough to find a listing of the problems of frames? A couple of days is
usually enough. There's always Google Groups anyway.
D
David Dorward
....D. said:
Old enough to find a listing of the problems of frames? A couple of days is
usually enough. There's always Google Groups anyway.
Oh no. Its the Lemming Justification - and not a very good one as its "Not a
lot, but some" rather then the more usual "99.97%".
K
Karl Groves
...D. said:
Why should anyone re-type them when you can carry your lazy ass to the
group's archives for last week (or any other week for that matter) and get
the same answer that you and every other frames-using jackass is given?
About a week
If by "helpful" you mean "eager to spread misinformation", then yes. You
definitely will. Good luck.
Congratulations. You found a small car company and a small bank that uses
frames.
How about the 10 largest companies in the world?
Walmart - no
Exxon - no
General Motors - no
Ford - no
General Electric - no
Chevron - no
Conoco Phillips - no
Citigroup - no
IBM - no
AIG - no
Wonder why?
How about the 100 largest banks in the world?
http://onlinebankingreport.com/resources/100.html
5 of them use frames.
Wonder why?
How about the top 100 sites on the internet?
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lang=none
None of them use frames.
Wonder why?
I wonder why Netscape, the people who invented frames, chose to stop using
them on their own site after only 6 months? Frames suck.
Who are you going to get your cues from about what to use on your site?
Your piddly-shit little bank, or the biggest companies in the world?
I answered anyway. I hope to add the above to the archives of this group
which will remain freely available to all of those who - unlike you - have
the forethought and consideration to search the newsgroup's archives before
asking the same 5 fucking questions that everyone else asks.
Despite the fact that you don't appreciate the delivery, the responses that
you have received here are accurate and from people who are among the most
knowledgeable as I've encountered in this industry. You should be thankful
that they've come here and even more thankful of their willingness to deal
with the same inane questions over and over (and the same clueless arguments
from people like you).
-Karl
W
Webcastmaker
You use these examples to show well designed sites (at lease as far
as frames are concerned). So are we to assume that the sites that
"get it right" with frames are equally correct in their usage of
tables for layout, or Javascript, flash etc... Or are frames the only
thing their developers have figured out so far? (That was a
rhetorical question.)