|
Posted by me on November 2, 2004, 2:55 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:
>second result is this page:
>http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac_frame.html not a framed page
>
Huh??
Google gives me this:
Index of IUPAC systematic names of pesticides
.... 2-acetyl-5-methyl-3-oxopent-4-en-5-olide dehydroacetic acid
3-acetyl-6-methylpyran-
2,4-dione dehydroacetic acid 5-acetyl-8-quinolinol quinacetol
acrylonitrile ...
www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac.html - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
On going to that, the page loads
http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac_frame.html
which looks like a frameset to me!
<frameset rows="79,*" title="Sets up the frames for the headings and
the index">
<frame src="index_iupac_head.html" marginheight="2" scrolling="auto"
title="Headings and navigation">
<frame src="index_iupac.html#a" name="index_iupac" marginheight="2"
marginwidth="8" scrolling="yes" title="Index of IUPAC names">
taken from : ../index_iupac_frame.html
Ah here's our googled page : <frame src="index_iupac.htm........
|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on November 2, 2004, 10:33 am
Please log in for more thread options
> wrote:
> >second result is this page:
> >http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac_frame.html not a framed page
> >
>
> Huh??
>
> Google gives me this:
>
> Index of IUPAC systematic names of pesticides
> ... 2-acetyl-5-methyl-3-oxopent-4-en-5-olide dehydroacetic acid
> 3-acetyl-6-methylpyran-
> 2,4-dione dehydroacetic acid 5-acetyl-8-quinolinol quinacetol
> acrylonitrile ...
> www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac.html - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
>
> On going to that, the page loads
> http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac_frame.html
>
> which looks like a frameset to me!
You only get there if you have Javascript enabled. So people not using
Javascript never see the page's title or the site's navigation links.
|
|
Posted by me on November 2, 2004, 4:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:33:14 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
>You only get there if you have Javascript enabled. So people not using
>Javascript never see the page's title or the site's navigation links.
Hmm, very true. But how many sites don't rely on javascript?
One's that do and aren't very boring indeed I mean.
I prefer to avoid java applets, but catering for non-javascript
enabled narrows it down a bit..
I'm happy to be proved wrong though, any nice looking JS free sites
you could point me to?
|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on November 2, 2004, 12:14 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:33:14 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
>
> >You only get there if you have Javascript enabled. So people not using
> >Javascript never see the page's title or the site's navigation links.
>
> Hmm, very true. But how many sites don't rely on javascript?
> One's that do and aren't very boring indeed I mean.
The ones built by people who give viewership a higher priority over
entertainment. The ones by people who aren't content to limit their audience
to people who haven't turned pop-ups off. Most of the time I'm using the
web, I'm looking for information. I'm not impressed if every page I visit
tries to amuse me with a song and a dance. Maybe you call this "boring", but
I don't need to be entertained by every last thing I set my eyes on over the
course of the day, you know? Anyway, it's fine, in fact, to use Javascript
to enhance your pages, but you're spiting yourself if you don't provide
non-script means of getting the same information.
>
> I prefer to avoid java applets, but catering for non-javascript
> enabled narrows it down a bit..
>
> I'm happy to be proved wrong though, any nice looking JS free sites
> you could point me to?
Since Javascript has absolutely nothing to do with what a page looks like
(unless you have some awful timeout-based animation), only with how it
interacts with the user, I don't even understand where your question is
coming from. However, if you insist, here's one with no script at all:
http://butterflies.usenetshit.info/
and here's another that's attractive (at least, I think so), which *does*
have exactly two snippets of script in event handlers, but neither of which
affects the page's appearance.
http://www.alistapart.com/
The latter site gives lots of tips for creating great effects without
Javascript.
|
|
Posted by me on November 3, 2004, 9:51 am
Please log in for more thread options On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:14:30 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
<snip>
>coming from. However, if you insist, here's one with no script at all:
>
>http://butterflies.usenetshit.info/
>
>and here's another that's attractive (at least, I think so), which *does*
>have exactly two snippets of script in event handlers, but neither of which
>affects the page's appearance.
>
>http://www.alistapart.com/
>
>The latter site gives lots of tips for creating great effects without
>Javascript.
Many thanks, two very interesting sites.
I stand very much corrected, and will certainly study the info on that
site, and endevour to increase my skills.
FYI, my comments were based on an incomplete knowledge base rather
than arrogance or impertinence,hence my asking for examples, and I'm
thankful for the info.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | BGCOLOR only in Opera, not other browsers (valid page) | May 4, 2008, 1:38 am |
| problems getting valid HTML out of PHP | September 17, 2004, 6:26 pm |
| valid html for framesets | February 13, 2005, 10:25 am |
| Valid HTML Tutorial | December 6, 2005, 12:12 pm |
| Inserting MP3 into Valid HTML | September 24, 2008, 8:03 pm |
![]() valid (X)HTML? | December 17, 2007, 6:31 pm |
| Unrecognized file format prolem with valid html, please help! | November 9, 2004, 6:55 pm |
| Seemingly-simple valid HTML renders diff in FF1.0, IE6 | January 25, 2005, 12:04 pm |
W3C Validator error?
is valid for doctype HTML 4.01 Strict | April 21, 2005, 12:46 pm |
| legality/practicality of nesting complete, valid HTML pages | November 14, 2008, 1:11 am |
|
XML Sitemap