Warp wrote:
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
> 
>   I have noticed Firefox fixed this problem some time ago. In it, instead
> of the back button going strictly to the previous page, it goes to the
> previous user-specified page. In other words, if a page immediately
> redirects to another page using javascript or meta refresh or whatever,
> Firefox's back button will skip that intermediate page when going back.
> 
>   Quite handy. (I don't understand why *all* browsers don't do this.
> It just doesn't make sense to go back to a page which effectively
> immediately goes forward again.)

Yes, it's quite handy with povray news web interface itself, which 
constantly reloads the pages for updates.  Someday I was browsing it 
with IE and after I came back to it in a while I had to go back several 
times in order to get to the main page.  A non-issue in FF.

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, it's quite handy with povray news web interface itself, which 
> constantly reloads the pages for updates.  Someday I was browsing it 
> with IE and after I came back to it in a while I had to go back several 
> times in order to get to the main page.  A non-issue in FF.

o_O

I never saw reloading the *current page* causing extra entries on the 
back button.

Post a reply to this message

"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message 
news:47dee9d2@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47dee683$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>     I can't get off the page unless I click 5 times 'really' fast on the
>> back button in IE6 (just discovered that in angry mode! Grr!)  :)
>
> No need. There's a small arrow next to the back button in IE 6 (on the 
> right
> side in my browser). Click that and you'll get a drop down list of your
> browsing history. Select the second entry down (which should read 
> something
> about google images). No screen shot. Is past my bed time already.
>
>>       Is there no other way around using that code for a website with
>> frames? BTW, to me frames always = tables. What am I missing with this?
>>
>
> Frames != tables. Tables are a layout tool (an abused one). Frames are 
> used
> to create sub 'windows' within one site

 Aha! Thanks Gail. Now I understand it a little more. (I know through my own 
website code what a table is, I use them myself, but I wouldn't even know 
how to implement a 'frame' (which I thought was another name for a table)). 
(Yeah, I suck BT).  :o/


>
> Some years ago there was a rash of people loading other people's content 
> in
> their own frames, making it look as if they were the author of the 
> content.

    Really? People did that with other peoples websites? *Why* would they do 
that? For what reason?


> Many website designers (myself included) have code to ensure that their 
> site
> is not loaded into other people's frames

      Ok, cool move imo if it works good?

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

47e02cf2$1@news.povray.org...
> "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message 
> news:47dee9d2@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Some years ago there was a rash of people loading other people's content 
>> in
>> their own frames, making it look as if they were the author of the 
>> content.
>
>    Really? People did that with other peoples websites? *Why* would they 
> do that? For what reason?
>

I guess they got money from ads in the top frame without having to create 
content and pay for bandwith. The system goes on with all those websites 
copying content from Wikipedia or from ready-made article databases, just as 
lazy/stupid but a little more honest (and they pay for they own bandwith).

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> I guess they got money from ads in the top frame without having to create 
> content and pay for bandwith.

I come to the conclusion that advertising sucks most everything good out 
of a common infrastructure.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e02cf2$1@news.povray.org...
>
>  Aha! Thanks Gail. Now I understand it a little more. (I know through my
own
> website code what a table is, I use them myself, but I wouldn't even know
> how to implement a 'frame' (which I thought was another name for a
table)).
> (Yeah, I suck BT).  :o/
>

Here's a frameset from an old website of mine. Creates 2 frames, one loading
the navigation page, one loading the main page.
What you may note is that there's no body element. A page that creates
frames doesn't have a body section.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>

<head>
 <title>The Gila Monster's Nest</title>
</head>

<frameset cols="133,*" frameborder="yes"  border="0" bordercolor="Black"
rows="*">
  <frame src="Navigation.html" name="Navigation" scrolling="NO">
   <frame src="Blank.html" name="Main" scrolling="NO">
</frameset>
<noframes>
No Frames? Main page <a href="Main.html">here</a>
</noframes>
</html>

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:47e0506b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I guess they got money from ads in the top frame without having to create
> content and pay for bandwith. The system goes on with all those websites
> copying content from Wikipedia or from ready-made article databases, just
as
> lazy/stupid but a little more honest (and they pay for they own bandwith).

Or copying other people's blog postingss, which is a big problem these days.

Post a reply to this message

"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message 
news:47e09bef@news.povray.org...

> Here's a frameset from an old website of mine. Creates 2 frames, one 
> loading
> the navigation page, one loading the main page.
> What you may note is that there's no body element. A page that creates
> frames doesn't have a body section.
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
>
> <head>
> <title>The Gila Monster's Nest</title>
> </head>

   Heh, yeah, even though I haven't looked at your site for *ages*, I 
particularly remember the elephant shot. :) A friend of mine just took 30 
guests out to the Phillipines to get married, and the happy couple arranged 
to ride off on an elephant immediately after the wedding. Can't wait to see 
THOSE pictures! :o)


>
> <frameset cols="133,*" frameborder="yes"  border="0" bordercolor="Black"
> rows="*">
>  <frame src="Navigation.html" name="Navigation" scrolling="NO">
>   <frame src="Blank.html" name="Main" scrolling="NO">
> </frameset>
> <noframes>
> No Frames? Main page <a href="Main.html">here</a>
> </noframes>
> </html>

     Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't think 
I'd ever use frames myself.

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. escribió:
>      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.

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message 
news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...

>>      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?

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message