Posted by jake on 07/07/05 18:30

In message <11cok6ijpj0do6e@corp.supernews.com>, WCB
<wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> writes
>jake wrote:
>
>> In message <pan.2005.07.05.20.38.40.463463@tobyinkster.co.uk>, Toby
>> Inkster <usenet200507@tobyinkster.co.uk> writes
>>>jake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frame 1. A through Z
>>>> Frame 2. A list of all the chemicals starting with A, or B or whatever's
>>>> set by Frame 1.
>>>> Frame 3. details about the safety measures for the chemical set by Frame
>>>> 2.
>>>>
>>>> I click on 'I', then click on 'Isobutanol'.
>>>>
>>>> How much more simpler could it be? Clearly you see a problem where there
>>>> is no problem.
>>>
>>>OK. The above chemical reference site belongs to you.
>>>
>>>I, on the other hand, run a completely different website, on the topic
>>>of painting.
>>>
>>>I want to link to your page on Isobutanol, because that can be used as a
>>>solvent. So I have a choice:
>>>
>>> * link to your "isobutanol.html" page, in which case none of
>>> your navigation loads up; or
>>
>> And this is a problem? At the bottom of isobutanol.html is a link that
>> says something like "No navigation? Go here" ..... at which point
>> they're back at the frameset/index page.
>>
>>
>
>I have noticed this on a few sites. Now I understand.
>It seem then that the guys who use frames should
>be sure to have a next, previous, home link explicitly
>working.

Well, a link back to a page or frameset containing the navigation.

>So its not then exactly a frame problem, but failure
>to use frames right. Or am I not understanding this?

You're understanding it OK.
>
>So frames would seem to be OK if you take these
>problems into account.

Yes.
>
>Or are there other deeper problems with frames?
>
In practice? Not really.
>
>
>

--
Jake
(jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)

[Back to original message]