 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dot com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> 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.
They still are only server-side possibility to maintain static
navigational bar and loading only contents while surfing.
Yes, they are widely misused. But eg. when surfing with mobile
connection (GPRS gives 56kbps with 1sec latences if the connection is
good) I like them, because with them it's actually possible to reduce data.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
