Re: frames compatibility<OPINION TIME !!>
by "Mike O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>
|
| Date: |
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:13:09 -0500 |
| To: |
"Kate Pollara" <kpollara(at)home.com>,
<hwg-basics(at)hwg.org> |
| References: |
gte ctctel |
| |
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
At 07:44 AM 11/29/00 -0500, Kate Pollara wrote:
>So then why would anyone use frames except for an intranet site?
>Kate Pollara
Wow Kate. What a ~wonderful~ opportunity to voice my not so humble __
opinion __ !!
!! Thanks !!
1) Frames CAN be done effectively, and in some cases to great effect.
2) I hate to break the news, but according to ALL the sources quoted here
recently I have investigated (search services policy on frames) , putting
appropriate navigation links and textual content in the <.NOFRAMES> element
*does* allow a site to be indexed by their services.
Now . . . there IS credence to the thought "Wow, that means I have to do '
double ' the work" - well, as long as you discount the possibility to copy
and paste from the "existing" navigational frame, I guess that IS true.
Please do NOT construe this message to mean "Fuzzy says frames are cool".
Bull Feathers !! Fuzzy pretty much despises frames!! . . . but it is not
because of the frames, it is because of the people that post framed sites
without having the knowledge/commitment to do them properly!
There you have it, and I feel much better now !!
:-)
Fuzzy.
HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA