Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Redirecting to the index.html page

Reply
Thread Tools

Redirecting to the index.html page

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <5_aPj.3790$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > rf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
> >> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed):
> >>
> >>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
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
> ****ing 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Harlan Messinger <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
> > ****ing 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
In article <Xns9A87D8BECEF23neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.com/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008, Ed Jay <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Raymond SCHMIT
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Raymond SCHMIT
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2008
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:15:09 +1000, dorayme
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (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...)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven Saunderson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2008
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:05:22 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Error when redirecting to an asp page from an aspx page Loui Mercieca ASP .Net 3 09-03-2005 04:31 PM
Redirecting Mobile Page to a different page and come back Sathish Kumar K ASP .Net Mobile 1 07-14-2005 10:37 AM
Redirecting to page page... digime HTML 2 02-10-2005 06:24 PM
Re: redirecting from .aspx page to .asp page Jeff Trotman ASP .Net 0 07-16-2003 04:25 AM
Re: redirecting from .aspx page to .asp page Steve C. Orr, MCSD ASP .Net 0 07-15-2003 12:18 AM



Advertisments