Redirecting to the index.html page

I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....

Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm

with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html

I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
exemple-balade.htm ...

A possible solution could be a javascript asking if "interested by the
'menu' of the site ?" ... this question only present if the
"exemple-balade.htm" page in in the "root window".

Some ideas will be usefull on: what's the best way of solving this
problem ?

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Raymond SCHMIT wrote:
> I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
>
> Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
> http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
>
> with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
> site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
>
> I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
> index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
> from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
> exemple-balade.htm ...
>
> A possible solution could be a javascript asking if "interested by the
> 'menu' of the site ?" ... this question only present if the
> "exemple-balade.htm" page in in the "root window".
>
> Some ideas will be usefull on: what's the best way of solving this
> problem ?
>

You are not going to like it. Answer, don't use frames. It is the
classic problem with frames is only the outer frameset is public and you
cannot bookmark internal pages without JavaScript tricks...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article <480e2170.8264968@news.individual.net>,
Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:

> I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
>
> Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
> http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
>
> with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
> site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
>
> I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
> index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
> from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
> exemple-balade.htm ...

Not if you do it right and make sure the link is to a frameset that
contains the navigation. You have two options here, one easy and one a
bit of a drag if you have a lot of pages. Take the easy way first: make
the link to the frameset with the home page. They can get back to the
page they are interested in from there (and also see the full glory of
your offerings at the same time). The more laborious way, which rather
spoils the advantage of frames is to make a frameset for each possible
combination of frames. You then link to the appropriate one on each
frame.

Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
You are a true blue.

I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.

PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your use
of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme scribed:

>In article <480e2170.8264968@news.individual.net>,
> Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:
>
>> I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
>>
>> Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
>> http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
>>
>> with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
>> site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
>>
>> I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
>> index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
>> from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
>> exemple-balade.htm ...
>
>Not if you do it right and make sure the link is to a frameset that
>contains the navigation. You have two options here, one easy and one a
>bit of a drag if you have a lot of pages. Take the easy way first: make
>the link to the frameset with the home page. They can get back to the
>page they are interested in from there (and also see the full glory of
>your offerings at the same time). The more laborious way, which rather
>spoils the advantage of frames is to make a frameset for each possible
>combination of frames. You then link to the appropriate one on each
>frame.
>
>Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
>I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
>keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
>You are a true blue.
>
>I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
>various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
>po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
>
>PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your use
>of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
>membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.

Take a check? :-)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article <83dq04dm7n4j70a5nj4h62r23bd13pul2l@4ax.com>,
Ed Jay wrote:

> >I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
> >$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
> >various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
> >po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
> >
> >PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your use
> >of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
> >membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.
>
> Take a check? :-)

I am so sorry Ed, but no. It is a costly business cashing in O/S
cheques. However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain
samples from scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling
experiments to understand earthlings better.)

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
E190B2.10073122042008@web.aioe.org:

> Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
> I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
> keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
> You are a true blue.
>
> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
> $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
> various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
> po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.

Do you include in this Framepeace rubbish the fact that the people who last
century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six months
to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?

--
Richard
Killing all threads involving google groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme scribed:

>In article <83dq04dm7n4j70a5nj4h62r23bd13pul2l@4ax.com>,
> Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> >I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>> >$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
>> >various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
>> >po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
>> >
>> >PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your use
>> >of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
>> >membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.
>>
>> Take a check? :-)
>
>I am so sorry Ed, but no. It is a costly business cashing in O/S
>cheques.

Not a problem; the check wouldn't be cashable anyway.

>However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain
>samples from scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling
>experiments to understand earthlings better.)

You can't fool me. It's obvious that you want to assimilate me.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article <5_aPj.3790$ko5.2786@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf wrote:

> dorayme wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
> E190B2.10073122042008@web.aioe.org:
>
> > Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
> > I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
> > keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
> > You are a true blue.
> >
> > I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
> > $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
> > various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
> > po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
>
> Do you include in this Framepeace rubbish the fact that the people who last
> century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six months
> to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?

Yes I do. Very much so. They are the biggest traitors of all, the most
callous of the callous. Framepeace has a very special antipathy towards
them, their crime is greater than yours and Jonathan's and mine for not
using frames. Because they were *the parents*. For God's sake, Richard,
have you no morality at all? Have you lost all your moral bearings, man?

Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
fucking respect for these things, mate.

BTW, I reached for my James Bond style handbag (it has high tech built
in devices like his car) when I saw the word "rubbish" in the above.
Idiotically I like your direct ways and in a moment of weakness awarded
you more points than you probably deserve, you old rascal. Please don't
take advantage of this to insult me. I cannot help it that you refuse
point blank to take idiocy seriously. Grow down!

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote:

> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
> $US10 dollars to join up.

He can't join... he already committed frameicide!

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote:
> In article <5_aPj.3790$ko5.2786@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> rf wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
>> E190B2.10073122042008@web.aioe.org:
>>
>>> Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
>>> I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
>>> keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
>>> You are a true blue.
>>>
>>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>>> $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
>>> various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
>>> po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
>> Do you include in this Framepeace rubbish the fact that the people who last
>> century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six months
>> to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?
>
> Yes I do. Very much so. They are the biggest traitors of all, the most
> callous of the callous. Framepeace has a very special antipathy towards
> them, their crime is greater than yours and Jonathan's and mine for not
> using frames. Because they were *the parents*. For God's sake, Richard,
> have you no morality at all? Have you lost all your moral bearings, man?
>
> Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
> right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
> fucking respect for these things, mate.
>
> BTW, I reached for my James Bond style handbag (it has high tech built
> in devices like his car) when I saw the word "rubbish" in the above.
> Idiotically I like your direct ways and in a moment of weakness awarded
> you more points than you probably deserve, you old rascal. Please don't
> take advantage of this to insult me. I cannot help it that you refuse
> point blank to take idiocy seriously. Grow down!
>

Yes, yes. But. Can you in a succinct way, tersely, explain why frames
are good? Why they should be used? Can you, again, succinctly, counter
all the "frames are bad" arguments? Logically? Tersely?

I ask this not out of idle curiosity. I ask this in order to get a
non-earthly view on the topic without the hyperbole and because I enjoy
your posts.

I once had a Web site that was "framed." It was a huge mess to
administer and manage. And I found that it suffered from most every
fault claimed in the "frames are evil" arguments. Hence, I no longer do
that.

So, I'm eager to hear your defense of frames. Again. Please!
Succinctly. I do understand that may be very un-Martian of me to
request of you. Still. Please?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Ed Jay wrote:

> dorayme scribed:
>
>>In article <83dq04dm7n4j70a5nj4h62r23bd13pul2l@4ax.com>,
>> Ed Jay wrote:
>>
>>> >I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>>> >$US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
>>> >various species of HTML, to stopthem being completely fossilized by
>>> >po-faced zealots bent on all things modern.
>>> >
>>> >PS. Raymond, if you want a formal certificate praising you for your
>>> >use of frames from Framepeace, please send $10. This will cover your
>>> >membership as well. This special offer ends in 7 years.
>>>
>>> Take a check? :-)
>>
>>I am so sorry Ed, but no. It is a costly business cashing in O/S cheques.
>
> Not a problem; the check wouldn't be cashable anyway.
>
>>However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain samples from
>>scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling experiments to
>>understand earthlings better.)

"Our Credit Manager's name is Helen Waite. If you want credit you can go
to Helen Waite."


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>> $US10 dollars to join up.
>
> He can't join... he already committed frameicide!

But...but...he shouldn't be convicted if he was framed.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>>> $US10 dollars to join up.
>>
>> He can't join... he already committed frameicide!
>
> But...but...he shouldn't be convicted if he was framed.

He committed frameicide, Blinky. He's DEAD!

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article <_eKdnQT3o8oA05DVnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <5_aPj.3790$ko5.2786@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > rf wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
> >> E190B2.10073122042008@web.aioe.org:
> >>
> >>> Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
> >>> I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
> >>> keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
> >>> You are a true blue.
> >>>
> >>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
> >>> $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
> >>> various species of HTML,
> >> Do you include in your venerable and worthy Framepeace the fact that the people who
> >> last
> >> century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six
> >> months
> >> to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?
> >
> > Yes I do. Very much so. They are the biggest traitors of all... to
> > do this to their own child is unforgivable...

>
> Yes, yes. But. Can you in a succinct way, tersely, explain why frames
> are good? Why they should be used? Can you, again, succinctly, counter
> all the "frames are bad" arguments? Logically? Tersely?
>

Ed, in a word, no. Who would argue these days that frames are actually
good in the sense of 'to be recommended' for a new site? Not me. I am
only an honorary idiot. Yes, I know, I could have fooled you.

The arguments against making a website with frames these days are mostly
good, some are even pretty devastating (where a big site is concerned).

> I ask this not out of idle curiosity. I ask this in order to get a
> non-earthly view on the topic without the hyperbole and because I enjoy
> your posts.
>

Without hyperbole? Jesus Christ! That is pretty demanding Ed!

I would have thought I had made it pretty plain that it is not so much
frames I am defending but the attempt from the pulpit of this church to
completely annihilate the poor things from the wild. This is a vicious
and nasty thing to want and Framepeace aims to stop it!

King's Regulations are all very well (See the marvelous 1965 film The
Hill, Sean Connery, Harry Andrews for a nice reference to KR. An
absolute classic by Lumet (who has a film out right now, btw, he is
still going and he is very good!)) but there is a larger view:

The larger view is to welcome a bit of variety in website species to
allow some ancient forms to persist for our delight and education. They
do no harm, especially if they are done well. Have you got the idea of
them being done well? That they can be done well? That it is important
not to attack the weaker types of examples. This is called avoiding a
setting up strawmen.

Hey Ed! How am I going for succinctness? Have I room for more?


> I once had a Web site that was "framed." It was a huge mess to
> administer and manage. And I found that it suffered from most every
> fault claimed in the "frames are evil" arguments. Hence, I no longer do
> that.
>
> So, I'm eager to hear your defense of frames. Again. Please!
> Succinctly. I do understand that may be very un-Martian of me to
> request of you. Still. Please?

I can certainly think of some good features for them, some positively
good, some negatively good.

But I know you are all asleep now so I will simply stop.

Let the odd Frenchman have a framed site.

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote:
> In article <_eKdnQT3o8oA05DVnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <5_aPj.3790$ko5.2786@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>> rf wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
>>>> E190B2.10073122042008@web.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Watch out for zealots who will carry on their usual spiel about frames.
>>>>> I want to take the opportunity here, Raymond, to congratulate you on
>>>>> keeping this wonderful and exotic and old technology alive. Bless you.
>>>>> You are a true blue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remind anyone who wants to join my organization, Framepeace, to send
>>>>> $US10 dollars to join up. Framepeace is dedicated to keeping alive
>>>>> various species of HTML,
>>>> Do you include in your venerable and worthy Framepeace the fact that the people who
>>>> last
>>>> century invented frames (Netscape) rewrote their site after only six
>>>> months
>>>> to *not* use frames and have never used frames again?
>>> Yes I do. Very much so. They are the biggest traitors of all... to
>>> do this to their own child is unforgivable...
>
>> Yes, yes. But. Can you in a succinct way, tersely, explain why frames
>> are good? Why they should be used? Can you, again, succinctly, counter
>> all the "frames are bad" arguments? Logically? Tersely?
>>
>
> Ed, in a word, no. Who would argue these days that frames are actually
> good in the sense of 'to be recommended' for a new site? Not me. I am
> only an honorary idiot. Yes, I know, I could have fooled you.
>
> The arguments against making a website with frames these days are mostly
> good, some are even pretty devastating (where a big site is concerned).
>
>> I ask this not out of idle curiosity. I ask this in order to get a
>> non-earthly view on the topic without the hyperbole and because I enjoy
>> your posts.
>>
>
> Without hyperbole? Jesus Christ! That is pretty demanding Ed!

I knew it was too much to ask!

>
> I would have thought I had made it pretty plain

No, actually, you didn't make anything plain. Well. Except in Martian.
Which I don't speak fluently, which was why I asked!

> that it is not so much
> frames I am defending but the attempt from the pulpit of this church to
> completely annihilate the poor things from the wild. This is a vicious
> and nasty thing to want and Framepeace aims to stop it!

Well, sorta "ok." I don't like churches much at all, despite having
sung in so many over the years.

>
> King's Regulations are all very well (See the marvelous 1965 film The
> Hill, Sean Connery, Harry Andrews for a nice reference to KR. An
> absolute classic by Lumet (who has a film out right now, btw, he is
> still going and he is very good!)) but there is a larger view:

A complete aside: I have actually had people say to me: "Omigod! You
look just like Sean Connery!" Once, a clerk at the checkout at the
local pharmacy. Totally freaked me out. At the time (hmm, I guess the
same is true now) it was partly because Sean is 20 years older than I
am. Sheesh!

> The larger view is to welcome a bit of variety in website species to
> allow some ancient forms to persist for our delight and education. They
> do no harm, especially if they are done well. Have you got the idea of
> them being done well? That they can be done well? That it is important
> not to attack the weaker types of examples. This is called avoiding a
> setting up strawmen.
>
> Hey Ed! How am I going for succinctness? Have I room for more?
>

Not at all!!! Although, your particular style of Martian humor does
seem to suck me in and make me humor you.

>> I once had a Web site that was "framed." It was a huge mess to
>> administer and manage. And I found that it suffered from most every
>> fault claimed in the "frames are evil" arguments. Hence, I no longer do
>> that.
>>
>> So, I'm eager to hear your defense of frames. Again. Please!
>> Succinctly. I do understand that may be very un-Martian of me to
>> request of you. Still. Please?
>
> I can certainly think of some good features for them, some positively
> good, some negatively good.

But! But! You don't tell me anything about that!

> But I know you are all asleep now so I will simply stop.

Sleep!? I don't need no steenking sleep!!!

> Let the odd Frenchman have a framed site.

Oooo! I foresee a lively discussion coming! Bear in mind, my wife of 35
years is from French Canada. So, well, ah, err ...

And, while you entertained me you didn't do any of what I asked. No
arguments pro or con (succinct or otherwise). So, I will not be sending
a check in any amount to support your frame thingy/revolution/revival.


Still, you're pretty funny. Even if you argue and then obfuscate to the
point of a nonsensical lack of ... oh, nevermind! :-)

And, now I WILL go to bed!

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
How come a slight tax increase costs you two hundred dollars and a
substantial tax cut saves you thirty cents?

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On 21 Apr 2008, Ed Jay wrote:

> dorayme scribed:
>>However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain
>>samples from scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling
>>experiments to understand earthlings better.)
>
> You can't fool me. It's obvious that you want to assimilate me.

Beware; watch out for dorayme! Here's a picture of her in her native
habitat:

http://tinyurl.com/4yk4hz

Notice the evil sneer for the poor critter just out of camera range. It's
libel to get messy.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote:

>
> Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
> right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
> fucking respect for these things, mate.

Good heavens. I had mistaken you for the anti-Boji but now I see you and
he are in one and the same camp. Pardon me while I douse my ears in ammonia.

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article <6757rdF2n7nkjU1@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you really think that giving birth to a creature gives someone a
> > right to do what they will with that creature? Of course not. Have some
> > fucking respect for these things, mate.
>
> Good heavens. I had mistaken you for the anti-Boji but now I see you and
> he are in one and the same camp. Pardon me while I douse my ears in ammonia.

You have to understand that when talking to Australians, this type of
emphasis is an accepted and expected communication device. I am sorry
about your ears. Surely you need not use so harsh a chemical on them? At
least for so mild a deviation from International Moral English.

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article ,
Ed Mullen wrote:

> > I would have thought I had made it pretty plain
>
> No, actually, you didn't make anything plain.

It is perhaps because you have not got the conception that it may be bad
for something to be widespread yet good for it to exist without being
widespread.

If someone already has a framed site, if it is not a big site, if they
can be encouraged to make it better than it is, this is not such a bad
thing. It is not the end of the world as we know it. The way some folk
here talk about frames (often so bitterly, with such vehemence), you
would never guess that the world could actually continue on quite well
with a few of them scattered here and there.

Christians are pretty well wrong about all the most fundamental
questions that humans can ask and it would be a very bad thing if all
the lecturers or masters in your uni or school were priests. But it
could well be a good thing for just some of them to be. Is this
something you cannot grasp as an analogy? Something that makes my words
and thoughts so obscure to you?

A society is richer for having different cultures and beliefs. That is
all Ed. there is nothing mysterious about it. Nothing vague. You used
frames yourself so you must be aware of their good points? And you
would, by now, be aware of the best practice of working with frames?
Yes? They have their coolnesses. And you know not to use them now.
Nothing the least mysterious.

Still not plain enough? How about: I have a 37 year old rust bucket car.
I think it is nice to have some old cars on the road. The same with
frames. It is nice to have a few around.

What you take for obfuscation I take to be an inability on my part to
show you a whole different world.

Be careful in these newsgroups Ed, you are a bit innocent I fear and
maybe I need to protect you. Do not get swallowed up by the railway line
narrow othodoxies that can prevail. I know you are a young man, not even
60. If anyone crosses you, let me know.

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008, Ed Jay wrote:
>
> > dorayme scribed:
> >>However, I do accept in lieu, body parts. Ears, hands, brain
> >>samples from scoops through the ear (I use this in my modelling
> >>experiments to understand earthlings better.)
> >
> > You can't fool me. It's obvious that you want to assimilate me.
>
> Beware; watch out for dorayme! Here's a picture of her in her native
> habitat:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4yk4hz
>
> Notice the evil sneer for the poor critter just out of camera range. It's
> libel to get messy.

Your use of "libel" is prophetic. I have instructed my lawyers already.

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Ed Mullen wrote:

> Oooo! I foresee a lively discussion coming! Bear in mind, my wife of 35
> years is from French Canada. So, well, ah, err ...

When she cusses you out, does she still slip back into French? :)

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On 21 Apr 2008, dorayme wrote:

>> > You can't fool me. It's obvious that you want to assimilate me.
>>
>> Beware; watch out for dorayme! Here's a picture of her in her native
>> habitat:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4yk4hz
>>
>> Notice the evil sneer for the poor critter just out of camera range.
>> It's libel to get messy.
>
> Your use of "libel" is prophetic. I have instructed my lawyers
> already.

Lawyers? Well, if you're libel to put me in your will, I'm sure enough
willing to be so put. But don't wait too long because wouldn't it be a
shame if I kicked the bucket before you? And btw, stipulate that the
moolah gets converted to American dollars on payment 'cause I don't want to
have to mess around with any "funny money".

Oh, and thanks.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> Oooo! I foresee a lively discussion coming! Bear in mind, my wife of 35
>> years is from French Canada. So, well, ah, err ...
>
> When she cusses you out, does she still slip back into French? :)
>

Well, after all the time she's been in the states she does just
fine in English.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
There is one thing I would break up over and that is if she caught me
with another woman. I wouldn't stand for that. - Steve Martin

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>>> I would have thought I had made it pretty plain
>> No, actually, you didn't make anything plain.
>
> Still not plain enough? How about: I have a 37 year old rust bucket car.
> I think it is nice to have some old cars on the road. The same with
> frames. It is nice to have a few around.
>

Now there ya go! ;-)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you. Say a
bench has wet paint and he has to touch it.

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond
SCHMIT) wrote:

>I have a little problem of "What's the best way to ?"....
>
>Suppose that Google find some pages of my site ..this one per example:
>http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
>
>with this situation the en-user cannot beneficiate the "menu" of the
>site: http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/index.html
>
>I had an idea about inserting a link on the page pointing to
>index.html ...but this could cause problem when the site is surfed
>from index.html and someone click on the index.html link on the page
>exemple-balade.htm ...
>
>A possible solution could be a javascript asking if "interested by the
>'menu' of the site ?" ... this question only present if the
>"exemple-balade.htm" page in in the "root window".
>
>Some ideas will be usefull on: what's the best way of solving this
>problem ?

Thanks for all suggestions ...and diversions :-)
Finally i solved my problem ... euh... gracefully by using the
end-user brain instead of some tricky javascript or php contructs.

Except of the menu,title and index pages.....I put at the end of the
page who it's better to not see it alone the following:
If the menu is not visible, click HERE to get it.
The link under the word "HERE" points to "index.html"

(You may see the result ... by using
http://lesvieillesbranches.890m.com/exemple-balade.htm
and clicking on the words ICI or MENU at the end of the page
- when you see the menu, it's stupid to continue clicking on the link
at the end of the page)

Notes for some contributors:
I did not have any problem with frame except this one.
I did not know how to do a simple menu and simple presentation without
using frames.
In my opinion....not using frames oblige me to put on each page the
title and the menu .... 33 times wasted spaces if the site have 32
pages.

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

In article <480e044f.4111984@news.individual.net>,
Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond
> SCHMIT) wrote:
>
> Notes for some contributors:
> I did not have any problem with frame except this one.

Which does not mean other people do not have problems. There are
bookmarking problems for your users.

> I did not know how to do a simple menu and simple presentation without
> using frames.

This is not hard to do by use of what is called "includes". Google that
one up. You can get help with them here if you have difficulties. To be
brief, you stick on each page a short string that looks something like
this:



in the place where you want the menu to appear. Your menu will be just
one simple text file called nav.inc and it will be placed on the page
before it is delivered to the user.

The feature of your frames menu is that it does not scroll with the
scrollng of your contents. This is in many ways an excellent feature.
You will lose this feature unless you adopt a device to "fix" the menu.
CSS 'position: fixed;' can do it but there are cross browser problems.


> In my opinion....not using frames oblige me to put on each page the
> title and the menu .... 33 times wasted spaces if the site have 32
> pages.

You will, as a rational person, be changing this opinion from now on
then...

--
dorayme

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:15:09 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

>In article <480e044f.4111984@news.individual.net>,
> Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:32:53 GMT, Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond
>> SCHMIT) wrote:
>>
>> Notes for some contributors:
>> I did not have any problem with frame except this one.
>
>Which does not mean other people do not have problems. There are
>bookmarking problems for your users.
>
>> I did not know how to do a simple menu and simple presentation without
>> using frames.
>
>This is not hard to do by use of what is called "includes". Google that
>one up. You can get help with them here if you have difficulties. To be
>brief, you stick on each page a short string that looks something like
>this:
>
>
>

This method will download the menu *and* the title when you just need
the page ...and more ....you need a webhosting offering php ...(my isp
refuse to furnish me php if i don't want to pay more...)

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On 23 Apr 2008, Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:

>>
>>
>
> This method will download the menu *and* the title when you just need
> the page ...and more ....you need a webhosting offering php ...(my isp
> refuse to furnish me php if i don't want to pay more...)

What are you paying now? Hosting with php is pretty cheap nowadays.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:05:22 GMT, Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond
SCHMIT) wrote:

> >
>
> This method will download the menu *and* the title when you just need
> the page ...and more ....you need a webhosting offering php ...(my isp
> refuse to furnish me php if i don't want to pay more...)

Does your ISP support SSI ? This will allow you to include files in a
web page. The web pages normally have an .shtml extension and this
causes Apache to scan the file and react to a limited set of commands
such as including another file.
--
Steven

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

dorayme wrote:

>

Just a minor note (maybe not so minor) most servers are configured to
parse *.inc as plain text so it is so if your inc contains php code or
worse, sensitive info such as db passwords email address..., it is
better to use .php to prevent hackers from downloading your source.

includes:

nav.inc.php

classes:

myClass.class.php



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:23:54 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
wrote:

>On 23 Apr 2008, Raymond.Schmit@pircarre.be (Raymond SCHMIT) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This method will download the menu *and* the title when you just need
>> the page ...and more ....you need a webhosting offering php ...(my isp
>> refuse to furnish me php if i don't want to pay more...)
>
>What are you paying now? Hosting with php is pretty cheap nowadays.

i pay 35 euros/month and i am in a retirement status....therefore 1
euro is 1 euro.
Anyway ..... using the end-user brain to choice of clicking or not
clicking on the "index.html" link will do the job gracefully .
Thanks a lot everybody for your ideas ... i will try some of them ...

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Raymond SCHMIT wrote:

> i pay 35 euros/month and i am in a retirement status....therefore 1
> euro is 1 euro.

Per month! For hosting or is this to your ISP? Because you can get
pretty good hosting for that price ($55 USD) per *year*.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Redirecting to the index.html page

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Raymond SCHMIT wrote:
>
>> i pay 35 euros/month and i am in a retirement status....therefore 1
>> euro is 1 euro.
>
> Per month! For hosting or is this to your ISP? Because you can get
> pretty good hosting for that price ($55 USD) per *year*.
>

Not doing any currency conversions but my host is US$4.99 / month.
Here's the feature chart:

http://order.1and1.com/

My shared Web hosting is fast, lots of features, tons of capacity, and
cheap and reliable. YMMV

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Think honk if you're telepathic.