"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message 
news:47e15fea$1@news.povray.org...

>> "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.

 Yes, that's the one! Seriously, I haven't seen that for ages and I used to 
see it probably every other day or two(?) (Or, I'm not looking in the bad 
places anymore). ;)

Maybe people have changed to something else as sinister in modern way now. 
What would that be if so?


>
> 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.

     True. I think most probably have.

       ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message