|
|
Posted by Tim Streater on 10/19/07 15:50
In article <Y84Si.3840$kj1.1574@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> Tim Streater wrote:
> >>> Again, you don't say why it's better, you merely assert that it is.
> >>
> >> 1. There is only one page to deal with, not three or four (frameset,
> >> heading page, nav page, footer page, and of course, content page).
> >
> > It may ease the implementer's task, but so what.
>
> Ok, some people like to make things more complicated.
>
> >> 2. While looking at any of the sub-pages (in this case images), a
> >> visitor can *bookmark* the sub-page, unlike in frames where only the
> >> frameset page can be bookmarked.
> >
> > The main page in my app is reached via a table on another page. The
> > table contents may change (not very often, but it happens) based on
> > database contents. So they shouldn't be bookmarking even the main page,
> > as it may not exist at some future point. And they certainly shouldn't
> > be bookmarking the sub pages, as they are likely to get rubbish (data is
> > passed back and forth via JS variables in the top frame).
>
> Do you have full control of your 50 users' browsers? If JavaScript is
> disabled, that will certainly fail. <g>
Then they have my phone number, and I will ask them what sort of
Internet engineer are they, running without JS to our database front-end
site. This has not been a problem in the 8 years since I started
developing this.
> > In fact, if I had my way, I'd prevent any of these going into the
> > history stack.
>
> JavaScript should be able do that, for those who have it enabled.
Interesting. When I looked into this, the docs I looked at seemed to be
quite clear that there was no way to prevent a page going into the
history stack, and that this was deliberate.
> >> 3. Assuming pages of text rather than images, Google will index the
> >> content on the sub-page, and when a visitor goes there (direct link
> >> sans frameset), there is *no* header, footer, and more importantly,
> >> no navigation.
> >
> > Google doesn't need to know anything about any of my app's pages -
> > indeed, shouldn't because the users need to login to reach them.
>
> You didn't say that before...
Well, there it is. The dangers of making assumptions ...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|