St. escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message 
> news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...
>> St. escribi�:
>>>      Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't 
>>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
> 
>      Yes, I haven't spotted it for ages, but didn't some websites (say, when 
> doing a search), have tags like: "This website uses frames, please blah, 
> blah, blah" - or something like that?

Yes, those exist. They are the worst.

The "alternate content if frames aren't supported" (<noframes>) is 
supposed to be that: *alternate content*. Not a warning saying "your 
browser doesn't support frames, get one that does, or I won't show you 
anything useful". It should show the normal page contents, in a layout 
not requiring frames.

Although if they can make a layout that doesn't need frames, they might 
as well use it always and drop the frame-requiring one completely.

Post a reply to this message