By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,266 Members | 1,816 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,266 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

This page is not a valid HTML 4.01.WHY?

P: n/a
Hi at all
I try to validate this page using the link: http://validator.w3.org/
but it return that this is not a valid HTML 4.01 page
please where is it error?
Steil

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var query=window.location.search.substr(1)
</script>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<META NAME="Classification" CONTENT="???">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="My name">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="COMMERCIAL site">
<META NAME="KeyWords" CONTENT="COMPUTERS">
<title></title></head>
<frameset id="one" name="one"rows="0,106,*" frameborder="no" border="0">
<frame name="FN" id="FN" src="bag.htm" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"
noresize>
<frame name="up" id="up" src="menualto.htm" frameborder="0" border="0"
scrolling="no">
<frameset id="two" name="two" cols="160,*" frameborder="0" border="0">
<frame name ="menu" id="menu" src="blank.htm" frameborder="0" border="0"
scrolling="auto">
<frame name="view" id="view"
frameborder="0" border="0" scrolling="auto"
src="zero.HTM">
</frameset>
</frameset>
</html>


Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
25 Replies


P: n/a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT, Steal <NO****@hotmail.com> wrote:
I try to validate this page using the link: http://validator.w3.org/
but it return that this is not a valid HTML 4.01 page
please where is it error?


The errors are given in the results page from the validator. As you
haven't provided a URL I assume that you're expecting us to cut and paste
your code into a file and validate it ourselves? If you want help then you
should make it easy for us to help.

Here's what you need to do to fix it:

1. Don't use XHTML syntax in HTML documents.
2. Don't use attributes that don't exist in the version of HTML that
you're claiming to write.
3. Nest elements inside their proper parents.
4. Put some content into elements that require content.

And whilst we're at it:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html

Steve
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Steal" <NO****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jx*****************@twister1.libero.it...
Hi at all
I try to validate this page using the link: http://validator.w3.org/
but it return that this is not a valid HTML 4.01 page
please where is it error?


The validator *tells* you where the errors are, and it gives you the option
to display your source code with the lines numbered.

I'm curious, because of the frequency with which people come here making the
same request: How is it that you didn't notice that the errors were all
explained on the validation resuls page?

Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT, "Steal" <NO****@hotmail.com> wrote:
I try to validate this page using the link: http://validator.w3.org/
but it return that this is not a valid HTML 4.01 page
please where is it error?


<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"/>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -^- here.
Dont use pieces from XML when you have specifed HTML.

<frameset id="one" name="one"
- - - - - - - - - - ^^^^
rows="0,106,*" frameborder="no" border="0">
- - - - - - - - -^^^^^^^^^^^- - - ^^^^^^

NAME, FRAMEBORDER and BORDER are not valid attributes for a FRAMESET
element.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:44:47 GMT, Steal <NO****@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi at all
I try to validate this page using the link: http://validator.w3.org/
but it return that this is not a valid HTML 4.01 page
please where is it error?


The validator already told you. If you won't listen to it, why would you
listen to us?

If you're unsure what it meant, ask us that. What you've done is throw us
your code and asked us to do it for you. That's not what I want to do.

What I want to do is see the URL of the page, from which I can easily
check the validator. Then I want to reply to a specific question you might
have about why it fails.
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a

"Roland Eriksson"
<frameset id="one" name="one"
- - - - - - - - - - ^^^^
rows="0,106,*" frameborder="no" border="0">
- - - - - - - - -^^^^^^^^^^^- - - ^^^^^^

NAME, FRAMEBORDER and BORDER are not valid attributes for a FRAMESET
element.

--
Rex
Thank you very much.
But why without border="0" into the frameset, MIE display a little white
line among frames???
How can I do to have not this blank line using pure HTML 4.01 code???
Thank
Steil

Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
Steal wrote;
But why without border="0" into the frameset, MIE display a little white
line among frames???
Why not? It is good idea.
How can I do to have not this blank line using pure HTML 4.01 code???


Don't use frames.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Lauri Raittila"
How can I do to color this line to the some color of my background?

Steil

Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
Steal wrote;
How can I do to color this line to the some color of my background? Real quote: How can I do to have not this blank line using pure HTML 4.01 code???


You don't. There is no HTML4.01 code for it.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:10:39 GMT, "Steal" <NO****@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Roland Eriksson"
<frameset id="one" name="one"
- - - - - - - - - - ^^^^
rows="0,106,*" frameborder="no" border="0">
- - - - - - - - -^^^^^^^^^^^- - - ^^^^^^
NAME, FRAMEBORDER and BORDER are not valid attributes
for a FRAMESET element.
[...]But why without border="0" into the frameset, MIE display
a little white line among frames???
That's what its default rendering comes to when you use frames, which by
the way puts MSIE in non standard rendering mode too.

You might be able to fiddle around with some CSS for zero margin, border
and paddings on your FRAMESET/FRAME elements but I'm too lazy to help
you find out about that.
How can I do to have not this blank line using pure HTML 4.01 code???


You can't with HTML4.01 markup, and your real problem has its roots in
the use of a "dead end" technique like frames in the first place.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
me
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:59:09 +0100, "Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net>
wrote:
And whilst we're at it:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html


Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)

The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
scenario. (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)

If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?), and the
frames display as intended, why not use frames?

It's easy enough for a framed page to call up the frameset, so a
search engine hit on a page can easily be dealt with.

If there's a W3C doctype set for frames, then surely they can't be
that bad, huh?
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
me <me@no.where.com> writes:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:59:09 +0100, "Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net>
wrote:
And whilst we're at it:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html
Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)


Frames haven't changed at all in the last seven years. The way
browsers deal with frames has barely changed in the last seven
years. None of the problems in that article have gone away, but
there's several it doesn't mention (see below).
The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
scenario. (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)
Rather more than you think. Several don't deal with them *well*, and I
don't know of any mainstream search engine that goes for anything
other than the <noframes> content.

If you don't consider the lack of URL/page relationship (which breaks
bookmarking and in some browsers the back button too) a problem then
you should. It may not be a problem for the author but it certainly is
for many users. This is solvable while keeping frames, but it's a
third chunk of work per page.

Other problems not mentioned in that article:
Printing doesn't work particularly well with frames. It's
unpredictable at best, refuses to print the right frame *at all* at
worst. No real workarounds.

Navigation doesn't change to indicate where you are, so you get
circular links and other problems. Again, this is solvable if you
apply the fix to get the URL/page relationship, but it further
increases the amount of work needed to get the frames to work as well
as the normal page model they replace.

Effectively, to avoid most of the problems with frames you need to
write a separate frameset, navigation document, content document and
noframes element for each page. This is considerably more work
If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?)
Do they? The impression I get is that most websites *may* get tested
in IE, if the author is having a good day.

I test in lots of browsers, but generally I keep the screen resolution
at 1024*768 where it belongs (on this monitor for this user). The
*canvas width*, the important number, is currently about 820px but
gets tested across a wide range.
and the frames display as intended, why not use frames?
Not that web stats are particularly accurate, but here's the top user
agent string list from one server I maintain for October, and whether
they support frames.

1) IE. [Yes]
2) Googlebot. [No]
3) Mozilla. [Yes]
4) Msnbot. [Not as far as I know]
5) Firefox [Yes]
6) Opera [Yes or no, depending on what it's running on]
7) WWLib [No idea what this is. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't]
8) Netscape. [Yes]
9) Slurp [Not as far as I know]
10) Safari [Yes]

If we take out the four above that are (probably) search engines [1] in favour
of other browsers, then onto the end of the list:
11) Konqueror [Yes]
12) Lynx [Depends on version, but not particularly well when it does]
13) Galeon [Yes]
14) w3m [Yes, but poorly]

[1] I'm assuming WWLib is some sort of spider. If anyone knows that it
isn't, fine, my points stand either way.

How many of those common (top-10) browsers have you tested in? How
many of those search engines have you tested the display in?
It's easy enough for a framed page to call up the frameset, so a
search engine hit on a page can easily be dealt with.
It can call up the frameset, but can it call up the frameset on the
right page? You need to fix the URL problem, which you didn't consider
important.
If there's a W3C doctype set for frames, then surely they can't be
that bad, huh?


There's a W3C doctype for HTML 3.2, but it's generally agreed that a
lot of things in that are bad. Just because the W3C defines a way to
use something doesn't mean that it's necessarily good for general use
[2].

[2] In carefully selected specific uses, frames can be useful. There's
a thread from fairly recently trying to find some examples if you look
at the archive. But in general use on an average website? No.

--
Chris
Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, me wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:59:09 +0100, "Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net>
wrote:
And whilst we're at it:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html
Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)

The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
scenario.


You are right, that is not biggest reason.
(How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)
PDA stuff, I believe. In opera they can be turned of
If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?),
There is no suc things. And resolution is irrelevant, window can be
different sized. Anyway, resolutions used are something 320-5500px * 80-
4000px.
and the
frames display as intended, why not use frames?
It is impossible. That is because how frames are defined. They just can't
be used for fluid stuff. Remember, with frames you must use either px or
% for widths and heights, and neither is good for measuring text.
It's easy enough for a framed page to call up the frameset, so a
search engine hit on a page can easily be dealt with.
Well, you don't need frames anyway, if that is solution, right? I believe
most traffic will come to most sites though search engines
If there's a W3C doctype set for frames, then surely they can't be
that bad, huh?


There is laws out there saying spamming is not illegal, so surely
spamming can't be that bad?

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a

"me" <me@no.where.com> wrote in message
news:i2********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:59:09 +0100, "Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net>
wrote:
And whilst we're at it:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html
Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)


If the reasons were good seven years ago, why, to your knowledge, wouldn't
they be good now? All the old reasons for not operating heavy equipment
while drunk are still good, aren't they? :-)

The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
scenario. (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)

If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?), and the
frames display as intended, why not use frames?
Inability to bookmark a page.

If someone *does* get the URL for a page in the main content frame and
passes it to others, when they use it they'll see that page only, without
the frames, and will therefore be unable to browse the rest of your
site--which you would probably like them to be able to do.

Indexability by search engines.

One that's newer than reasons from seven years ago: because they're not
supported in strict HTML.

It's easy enough for a framed page to call up the frameset,
I don't know what this means.
so a
search engine hit on a page can easily be dealt with.
How does the search engine know your page is there in the first place? The
spiders that index pages don't support frames. They'll only see what's
inside the NOFRAMES element.

If there's a W3C doctype set for frames, then surely they can't be
that bad, huh?


The frameset DTD is a modified version of the transitional DTD and, like the
transitional DTD, covers deprecated features that aren't in the strict DTD
for the purpose of supporting legacy documents. Frames are one of those
features.

Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
Re: http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/frames/whatswrong.html
me <me@no.where.com> wrote:
Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames? (A
more up to date view rather than one written 7 years ago)
There isn't a more up-to-date design of frames than the one Netscape
delivered 8 years ago. Why would we need a more up-to-date critique of the
design of frames than the one Arnoud wrote 7 years ago?
The only really valid argument I can see on the above page is that
lots of work would need to be duplicated to deal with the NOFRAMES
scenario. (How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)


Keep looking. And FWIW, there's another summary here:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/fra...frame-problems

This weekend I spent some time describing the images on a few web pages for
a blind web user. The normal web pages were no problem; I'd just look up
the URL she gave me and describe the images.

The pages with frames were a hassle, because she couldn't just give me the
URLs of the content. She uses the computer every day, understood that
frames were being used, and was able to access the framed text just fine.
But when it came to the most basic detail of the content pages--their
URLs--the frames confused her.

And that is the fundamental problem with frames: they break the basic model
of how resources are addressed on the WWW.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/

"There are 10 kinds of people:
those who understand binary arithmetic and those who don't."
Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, "me" trolled:
(How many browsers these days don't deal with Frames?)
Basically, as a browser user, I'd say "all of them" don't "deal with
frames".

Oh, sure, most of them do the -author's- bidding, in assembling the
author-specified visual representation on the display. But so does
PDF, or MS Word. That isn't what the WWW is about.

Where they all fail is where they -have- to fail because of the
whole basis of the original design. It's been like that since day 1,
and it isn't going to get any better.

And to make matters worse, most browsers are no-frames-incapable: even
where the author has provided a proper no-frames alternative (as one
should, according to WAI guidelines), the majority of browsers offer
the reader no way of actually /using/ the no-frames alternative from
choice.
If a web page writer tests their design in several common browsers and
at the common screen resolutions (as everyone does yes?), and the
frames display as intended, why not use frames?


Read the original critique. A few minor blemishes of frames support
have been remedied in the intervening years, but the fundamentals are
still just as fundamentally broken as when they were originally
critiqued. At least we do now also have the WAI guidelines to point
to, so today there are arguably /more/ reasons for avoiding them than
there were at the start.

Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
me (me@no.where.com) wrote:

: Out of interest, (and seriously-not "frames suck") why not frames?

Speed of display.

Frames are commonly used for layout, and each "page" is actually a
complete new frame set. Each such "page" typically requires four or even
five downloads instead of just one.

The problem is that the time to serve a page is not just based on
the volume of data. There is additional overhead for each request.
For non-large pages the speed of the screen update depends just as
much on the number of requests as on the total volume of data.

A non-frame page would transfer all the data in a single request.

A typical frame page will transfer the same data in four or even five
requests (the frameset and three or four frames).

Therefore these frame based pages can be slower to display.

Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<87************@dinopsis.dur.ac.uk>...
I don't know of any mainstream search engine that goes for
anything other than the <noframes> content.


Google and Yahoo! both fully index the content of frames.

Try this search (with the quotes): "5-acetyl-8-quinolinol"

The results include indexes of IUPAC names that exist only as part of
a frameset. The search string does not exist within the <noframes>
content.

--
Alan Wood
http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
Jul 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Alan Wood said:
I don't know of any mainstream search engine that goes for
anything other than the <noframes> content.
Google and Yahoo! both fully index the content of frames.
Try this search (with the quotes): "5-acetyl-8-quinolinol"

The results include indexes of IUPAC names that exist only as part of
a frameset. The search string does not exist within the <noframes>
content.

first result is this page:
http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/quinacetol.html not a framed page
second result is this page:
http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/index_iupac_frame.html not a framed page

the second page tells me to go to another page if the navigation is
missing and that page tells me a lot of babble including a link to the
"browser requirements" for the site.

the only "browser requirements" the site should have is to work with the
visitors browser without making them jump through hoops to get to the
content. it does not.

very poor design. is it yours? i'd like to give you a good smack in the
head and tell you to wake up to yourself.
--
the facts and opinions expressed by brucies
l i t t l e v o i c e s
are not necessarily the same as those held by brucie.
Jul 23 '05 #19

P: n/a
me
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:56:25 +1000, brucie <sh**@usenetshit.info>
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........

Jul 23 '05 #20

P: n/a

"me" <me@no.where.com> wrote in message
news:f5********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:56:25 +1000, brucie <sh**@usenetshit.info>
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.

Jul 23 '05 #21

P: n/a
me
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:33:14 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
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?

Jul 23 '05 #22

P: n/a

"me" <me@no.where.com> wrote in message
news:8j********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:33:14 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
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.
Jul 23 '05 #23

P: n/a
me wrote:
how many sites don't rely on javascript?
All the correctly authored ones, of course.
One's that do and aren't very boring indeed I mean.


Warning, strawman alert!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Jul 23 '05 #24

P: n/a
me
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:14:30 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

<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.
Jul 23 '05 #25

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<2u*************@uni-berlin.de>...
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.


My Web sites do NOT depend on JavaScript.

If you go to index_iupac.html with JavaScript disabled, then you will
see the <noscript> content. This gives you a link to load the
appropriate frameset - pure HTML, no JavaScript used.

--
Alan Wood
http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
Jul 23 '05 #26

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.