By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
432,569 Members | 1,386 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 432,569 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

I've been FRAMED!

P: n/a
This is a serious question - but probably one that has been asked many
times before.

Go to http://wehner.org

It has FRAMES.

Select ADDISON. The main page (to the right of the buttons) shows it.

In ADDISON, select WHATIS. The main page switches to WHATIS.

Go to the bottom. There is a button that takes you back to
.../../index.htm

Wehner.org now appears in the main page - complete with a SECOND set
of buttons.

OUCH!

I have provided the entire Addison section as a ZIPped file in its own
right. I do not want to change it. Everything returns to INDEX.HTM
(lower case). I do not want to have to rewrite every page to return to
'index.htm TARGET="_top"' or similar.

I just want to put into the new FRAMESET index file the command to
force it to the top frame, and so prevent double buttons.

I have spent several hours experimenting and searching the Web.
Finding an answer from somebody who has already solved this problem
might save time.

In short, everything has been extensively advertised on search-engines
as separate pages. The new index just adds a "wrapper" around the lot
for easier access - but how do I avoid double buttons on return to the
home page?

This is a serious question - so please, no Internet graffitti.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
34 Replies


P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
This is a serious question - but probably one that has been asked many
times before.

Go to http://wehner.org

It has FRAMES.

Select ADDISON. The main page (to the right of the buttons) shows it.

In ADDISON, select WHATIS. The main page switches to WHATIS.

Go to the bottom. There is a button that takes you back to
../../index.htm

Wehner.org now appears in the main page - complete with a SECOND set
of buttons.

OUCH!

I have provided the entire Addison section as a ZIPped file in its own
right. I do not want to change it. Everything returns to INDEX.HTM
(lower case). I do not want to have to rewrite every page to return to
'index.htm TARGET="_top"' or similar.


You can do this with a simple search and replace programm.
I use Multi-Replace, works really fast and is free.
http://www.sofotex.com/Multi-Replace...ad_L13926.html

This is not the only problem you have on the site. Have you
tried viewing the Addison's Disease page on 800x600?

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
This is a serious question - but probably one that has been asked many
times before.
And so you've decided to read the group before posting the same
question, right? Or used Google to search the group? Or read the faq?
Go to http://wehner.org

It has FRAMES.


Don't use frames. You'll avoid all sorts of problems.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On 14 Sep 2003 09:07:50 -0700, in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
It has FRAMES.
Ho-ho...
Go to the bottom. There is a button that takes you back to
../../index.htm
Wehner.org now appears in the main page - complete with a SECOND set
of buttons.
That's what you get for using frames.
(lower case). I do not want to have to rewrite every page to return to
'index.htm TARGET="_top"' or similar.
So we're here to repear your errors ?
I just want to put into the new FRAMESET index file the command to
force it to the top frame, and so prevent double buttons.
I have spent several hours experimenting and searching the Web.
Several hours ? I found it very easily years ago.
This is a serious question - so please, no Internet graffitti.


I don't know what is internet graffitti... but I think I just did some.
:)


oh yeah. the solution you'd like, maybe.

Use the javascript, Luke.
In your index.htm, insert:

<script type="text/javascript">
function KillFrames() {
k = parent.frames.length;
if (k > 0)
parent.location.href = self.location.href;
}
</script>
In the <body> tag, insert this attribute:

OnLoad="KillFrames();"

--
++++++++ Zelda, Dragon Ball, Mana and my (art)work at www.salagir.com ++++++++
<Polytope> tetris is so unrealistic
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
> > I have provided the entire Addison section as a ZIPped file in its own
right. I do not want to change it. Everything returns to INDEX.HTM
(lower case). I do not want to have to rewrite every page to return to
'index.htm TARGET="_top"' or similar.
You can do this with a simple search and replace programm.
I use Multi-Replace, works really fast and is free.
http://www.sofotex.com/Multi-Replace...ad_L13926.html


I DO NOT WANT to rewrite every page, because the WEHNER.ZIP file and
my MIRROR program relate to the Addison section as self-contained. If
one goes to http://wehner.org/addison.htm one sees the site as it was
before. Here there are no frames.

Other sections also are self-contained. The only purpose for having a
new INDEX page is to allow a column of buttons on the left to offer a
wider choice of subjects.
This is not the only problem you have on the site. Have you
tried viewing the Addison's Disease page on 800x600?


The Addison index page auto-adapts to the size of the frame. The words
are more important than the images, so on small screens and with huge
text the picture of Thomas Addison "hides" behind the text-boxes.

To me, this is acceptable. I have tried it with many browsers and many
screen sizes - but the narrowing of the screen by the newly-introduced
frames puts more burden on the rendering.

The problem I am trying to solve is simply that of a double button
column on return.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
I have provided the entire Addison section as a ZIPped file in its own
right. I do not want to change it. Everything returns to INDEX.HTM
(lower case). I do not want to have to rewrite every page to return to
'index.htm TARGET="_top"' or similar.
You can do this with a simple search and replace programm.
I use Multi-Replace, works really fast and is free.
http://www.sofotex.com/Multi-Replace...ad_L13926.html


I DO NOT WANT to rewrite every page, because the WEHNER.ZIP file and
my MIRROR program relate to the Addison section as self-contained. If
one goes to http://wehner.org/addison.htm one sees the site as it was
before. Here there are no frames.


Sorry, I was under the impression that your reason for not
wanting to rewrite every page, was the amount of work.
Other sections also are self-contained. The only purpose for having a
new INDEX page is to allow a column of buttons on the left to offer a
wider choice of subjects.
This is not the only problem you have on the site. Have you
tried viewing the Addison's Disease page on 800x600?
The Addison index page auto-adapts to the size of the frame. The words
are more important than the images, so on small screens and with huge
text the picture of Thomas Addison "hides" behind the text-boxes.

To me, this is acceptable.


Didn't expect that..
I have tried it with many browsers and many
screen sizes - but the narrowing of the screen by the newly-introduced
frames puts more burden on the rendering.

The problem I am trying to solve is simply that of a double button
column on return.


I think you have only one option then. Change the name of
index.htm to index.html, and make a seperate index.htm,
which doesn't have the menu frame.
If you don't even want to change the one index.htm file,
then I think your problem can't be solved. (just from what I
know, that is, which isn't all that much ;-))

Don't know what happens then if you use http://wehner.org/
as the url. Will it open index.html? Then you're o.k. If
not, you will have to change the directory of the set of
files with the index.htm file.

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
I DO NOT WANT to rewrite every page, because the WEHNER.ZIP file and
my MIRROR program relate to the Addison section as self-contained. If
one goes to http://wehner.org/addison.htm one sees the site as it was
before. Here there are no frames.


It's perfectly harmless to add the target="_top" to the subsite; even if
it's used in a self-contained manner, not starting in a frame to begin
with, all the links will work. That target simply causes the browser to
get out of any frameset it might be in, but does nothing special if
you're not in a frameset to begin with.

But, in general, your question sounds very much like one of the form
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!", for which the standard answer is "So
don't do it, then!"

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Els
Els wrote:
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
I have provided the entire Addison section as a ZIPped file in its own
right. I do not want to change it. Everything returns to INDEX.HTM
(lower case). I do not want to have to rewrite every page to return to
'index.htm TARGET="_top"' or similar.
You can do this with a simple search and replace programm.
I use Multi-Replace, works really fast and is free.
http://www.sofotex.com/Multi-Replace...ad_L13926.html

I DO NOT WANT to rewrite every page, because the WEHNER.ZIP file and
my MIRROR program relate to the Addison section as self-contained. If
one goes to http://wehner.org/addison.htm one sees the site as it was
before. Here there are no frames.

Sorry, I was under the impression that your reason for not wanting to
rewrite every page, was the amount of work.
Other sections also are self-contained. The only purpose for having a
new INDEX page is to allow a column of buttons on the left to offer a
wider choice of subjects.
This is not the only problem you have on the site. Have you tried
viewing the Addison's Disease page on 800x600?

The Addison index page auto-adapts to the size of the frame. The words
are more important than the images, so on small screens and with huge
text the picture of Thomas Addison "hides" behind the text-boxes.

To me, this is acceptable.

Didn't expect that..
I have tried it with many browsers and many
screen sizes - but the narrowing of the screen by the newly-introduced
frames puts more burden on the rendering.

The problem I am trying to solve is simply that of a double button
column on return.

I think you have only one option then. Change the name of index.htm to
index.html, and make a seperate index.htm, which doesn't have the menu
frame.
If you don't even want to change the one index.htm file, then I think
your problem can't be solved. (just from what I know, that is, which
isn't all that much ;-))

Don't know what happens then if you use http://wehner.org/ as the url.
Will it open index.html? Then you're o.k. If not, you will have to
change the directory of the set of files with the index.htm file.


Did you try it? Does it work?
Have wehner.org/index.htm have the frames page, loading the
menu in the left frame, and wehner.org/sub/index.htm in the
right frame. This one being the original index.htm without
the side menu.

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Daniel R. Tobias" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message news:<Do*****************@news2.news.adelphia.net> ...
It's perfectly harmless to add the target="_top" to the subsite; even if
it's used in a self-contained manner, not starting in a frame to begin
with, all the links will work. That target simply causes the browser to
get out of any frameset it might be in, but does nothing special if
you're not in a frameset to begin with.

OK - I am getting some feedback that is not just burble. You are right
about 'TARGET=_top' or 'TARGET="_top"'. This is for writing a site
from scratch. I have indeed researched these matters, and I do know
about it.
But, in general, your question sounds very much like one of the form
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!", for which the standard answer is "So
don't do it, then!"


I created the site for Addison's disease, with the awareness that I
would later be adding more directories and more subjects. I knew that
I would be incorporating a 'wrapper', with buttons to guide the client
to the various pages.

Then I invented the 'MOIRÉ' technology, which gives an unusual
appearance to the wrapper page. It flashes as you scroll.

Moiré works best in a frame in Internet Explorer because there is no
CELLPADDING.

The problem now is simply how to leave the Addison site - used by
medical schools and universities worldwide - untouched. It works. It
is OK. It is available as a ZIP file. Pages end by going back to the
INDEX page of wehner.org.

We come up against SET THEORY. A set cannot contain itself. Thus there
is no way - other than by rewriting the site - that the TARGET
instruction will work if it is as follows:

Let us take Page 1, and call Page 2 quoting TARGET. Thus, Page 1
defines the Page 2 target.

If Page 2 is the INDEX, it must define its own target. This must
over-ride the TARGET definition given in Page 1. That is to say, there
must be a SELF-REFERENTIAL version of TARGET or you will be stuck
within frames.

My right-hand frame is called 'MAIN'. My new INDEX page - the wrapper
- goes to _top. When the buttons within the site call various pages,
they all go to MAIN. The new INDEX page needs a self-referential
command to over-ride this.

I have searched W3C - which is the top authority on HTML (Tim
Berners-Lee). I continue to research. There is an answer somewhere -
and this is a very general problem for web designers. Many, many,
people may want to put a FRAMES wrapper around an existing set of
pages, so a standard fix must be found.

As for the nonsense "DON'T USE FRAMES" - that is just flippant. One
could equally well argue "DON'T USE COMPUTERS".

The movers and shakers of this world create novelties and discover
obscure bugs, which they then fix before they move on.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...
I think you have only one option then. Change the name of
index.htm to index.html, and make a seperate index.htm,
which doesn't have the menu frame.
If you don't even want to change the one index.htm file,
then I think your problem can't be solved. (just from what I
know, that is, which isn't all that much ;-))

Don't know what happens then if you use http://wehner.org/
as the url. Will it open index.html? Then you're o.k. If
not, you will have to change the directory of the set of
files with the index.htm file.


WHAT A CLEVER IDEA! Have an INDEX.HTM and an INDEX.HTML

You've got me thinking! The answer may be in there somewhere.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
> Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...
I think you have only one option then. Change the name of
index.htm to index.html, and make a seperate index.htm,
which doesn't have the menu frame.
YES... YES... DID IT!
If you don't even want to change the one index.htm file,
then I think your problem can't be solved. (just from what I
know, that is, which isn't all that much ;-))

THE "WRAPPER" IS A "SUPERSET" - IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE SET OF PAGES, AND
CHANGEABLE.
Don't know what happens then if you use http://wehner.org/
as the url. Will it open index.html? Then you're o.k.
IT OPENED HTML - NOT HTM.

I THOUGHT WE - MYSELF WITH THE HELP OF Els - HAD IT FIXED!!!

WHEN THE index.html CALLED index.htm IT DISPLAYED ITSELF - YES -
ITSELF, INSTEAD OF THE index.htm PAGE. SAD.
If not, you will have to change the directory of the set of
files with the index.htm file.


CANNOT. IT IS ALREADY ADVERTISED EVERYWHERE AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION.

Thanks, Els - a brilliant attempt at solving this!

I am also researching at W3C.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...
I think you have only one option then. Change the name of
index.htm to index.html, and make a seperate index.htm,
which doesn't have the menu frame.

YES... YES... DID IT!

If you don't even want to change the one index.htm file,
then I think your problem can't be solved. (just from what I
know, that is, which isn't all that much ;-))
THE "WRAPPER" IS A "SUPERSET" - IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE SET OF PAGES, AND
CHANGEABLE.

Don't know what happens then if you use http://wehner.org/
as the url. Will it open index.html? Then you're o.k.

IT OPENED HTML - NOT HTM.

I THOUGHT WE - MYSELF WITH THE HELP OF Els - HAD IT FIXED!!!

WHEN THE index.html CALLED index.htm IT DISPLAYED ITSELF - YES -
ITSELF, INSTEAD OF THE index.htm PAGE. SAD.

If not, you will have to change the directory of the set of
files with the index.htm file.


CANNOT. IT IS ALREADY ADVERTISED EVERYWHERE AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION.


So?

The current (and advertised) location is: http://wehner.org/
right?
When people click that link, or type that url, they go to
http://wehner.org/index.htm.
Which is a frameset. Two frames.
One: menu (left)
Two: "site" (right)
That second frame, can have
<frame name=main src="subdirectory/index.htm">
and nobody will ever notice that. The complete site will
always stay in thant main frame. Right? The path in all the
pages is relative (IIRC), so it will always lead back to
http://wehner.org/subdirectory/index.htm, and not to
http://wehner.org/index.htm
Thanks, Els


You're welcome :-)

- a brilliant attempt at solving this!

Still attempting ;-)

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...

The current (and advertised) location is: http://wehner.org/
right?
NO! The site is international. For Addison's disease, the main URL is
http://wehner.org but the French is http://wehner.org/addison/louis
and the German is http://wehner.org/addison/canstatt .

When people click that link, or type that url, they go to
http://wehner.org/index.htm.

PERHAPS! I tried your idea of having index.htm AND index.html - it
chose NOT the first, but the second (index.html). This may be due to
the ASCII (alphabetical) properties of the file-name OR due to the
position of the file on the hard-disk. In the latter case, the system
may specify what in DOS would be defined as "index.htm?" - with a
question-mark representing ONE UNSPECIFIED character. Yet again, it
may test for index.htm AND test the same filename for index.html
before moving on.

When the first-filename-found specification defines the default
filetype, defragmentation and other phenomena may shuffle the
filenames and make the outcome unpredictable.

There are many different operating systems, so the dual HTM/HTML index
files might work on one system but not on another.

Which is a frameset. Two frames.
One: menu (left)
Two: "site" (right)
CORRECT!
That second frame, can have
<frame name=main src="subdirectory/index.htm">
and nobody will ever notice that. The complete site will
always stay in thant main frame. Right? The path in all the
pages is relative (IIRC), so it will always lead back to
http://wehner.org/subdirectory/index.htm, and not to
http://wehner.org/index.htm

YES! It would be perfect, but I will have to advertise
http://wehner.org/subdirectory/addison/louis and
http://wehner.org/subdirectory/addison/canstatt all over again.

Lots and lots of clients would be disappointed when the old links
don't work.

Using SET THEORY, I had assumed that there was the SET OF HTM and
separately the SET OF HTML.

When I turned the index page into index.html and the entire existing
site returned to index.htm the Internet Explorer browser delivered the
HTML page. That is to say, Internet Explorer does not recognise TWO
separate sets.

Internet Explorer accepts either HTM or HTML as hypertext. This then
creates the SET OF HYPERTEXT. HTM and HTML are all merged within this
set, and the file-extension is ignored in future.

Turning to the set of all Hypertext, Internet Explorer then selects
"index".

You ASK for "index.htm", you GET "index.html".

This stymies what would have been a good solution.

- a brilliant attempt at solving this!

Still attempting ;-)


And I appreciate it.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...
The current (and advertised) location is: http://wehner.org/
right?

NO! The site is international. For Addison's disease, the main URL is
http://wehner.org but the French is http://wehner.org/addison/louis
and the German is http://wehner.org/addison/canstatt .
YES! It would be perfect, but I will have to advertise
http://wehner.org/subdirectory/addison/louis and
http://wehner.org/subdirectory/addison/canstatt all over again.

Lots and lots of clients would be disappointed when the old links
don't work.


No, you don't have to advertise anything again.
How many different addresses were advertised? Only louis and
canstatt?
--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...
No, you don't have to advertise anything again.
How many different addresses were advertised? Only louis and
canstatt?


MASSES of items were advertised, in different ways - for example, the
simple GIF animation tool appears either as a GIF tool or as a FREE
SOFTWARE item. So, the entries may not be so easy to update.

People also make links to the site. The Addison section is medical,
but BIOGRAPHICAL sites have linked to it. The 3D site is quoted
elsewhere.

I HAVE GIVEN UP ON FRAMES.

My reason is NOT prejudice. It is as follows:

My GOOGLE entry went BLANK. I copied this to a hard disk, and started
mofifying it. I put "BODY Hi /BODY" in angle brackets, and "Hi"
appeared.

I moved it down to the "FRAMESET" command. Above it, it appeared.
Below, it was gone.

I moved further down to the "NOFRAMES" section. Even here, the "Hi"
failed to materialise.

GOOGLE is an important search engine. If you want people to see your
pages, you have to avoid frames.

I do not know how others who have frames succeed in appearing in
GOOGLE. Maybe they use some form of redirection. Anyway, the burden of
problems is too great just for the sake of a row of buttons and a
neater Moiré effect.

Search-engine presence is vital. I cannot afford the risks.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
The problem was that there is a SUPERSET of pages known as HYPERTEXT,
in which there are SUBSETS known as HTM and HTML, where FRAMES can be
specified by one file for another, but not for itself.

How do you force an INDEX - be it INDEX.HTM or INDEX.HTML - to the
_top frame?

"Els" had suggested that one creates TWO index files, one with .htm
and one with .html

However, Internet Explorer does not obey instructions literally. If
you call for INDEX.HTM and already have an INDEX.HTML, it delivers the
INDEX.HTML

Also GOOGLE refuses to display page content that contains FRAMES.

Accordingly, I REJECTED frames. The INDEX file is now "index.htm" as
before. All of the books in my site return to that "index.htm". The
site is FRAMELESS.

I am waiting for GOOGLE's robot to pick up on this change, and restore
the image of my site.

I have NO "index.html" because if I am at any time without equipment -
except the crudest, oldest DOS machine - I can still write pages on
the basis of "filename.typ", or "8.3".

So I gave up, did I?

NO!!

Go to http://wehner.org/frames

The file that used to be index.html, and used to define frames, is now
known simply as "filename." - as "6.0" - as "frames".

You get FRAMES when you ASK for them. Otherwise, you don't.

Charles Douglas Wehner

P.S.

Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...

No, you don't have to advertise anything again.
How many different addresses were advertised? Only louis and
canstatt?


NO! with just an extra page known as "frames", the hundreds of entries
in search-engines remain unchanged.

CDW
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
NO! The site is international. For Addison's disease, the main URL is
http://wehner.org but the French is http://wehner.org/addison/louis
and the German is http://wehner.org/addison/canstatt .
Actually, they're http://wehner.org/addison/louis/ and
http://wehner.org/addison/canstatt/ -- note the trailing slash. The
slashless versions merely cause a server redirect to the correct URLs.

Also, for multiple language versions, you might consider using content
language negotiation; see info:
http://webtips.dan.info/language.html
There are many different operating systems, so the dual HTM/HTML index
files might work on one system but not on another.
The end user's operating system is of no relevance to which page gets
served; it's a server-side thing. The end user has no way of knowing
the actual filenames of the pages that are served; only the server knows
for sure. The filename and directory path might or might not have any
resemblance to what is actually in the URL, depending on how the server
is configured.

There's a configuration setting for Web servers that tells them what
default index filenames to look for, and in what order; perhaps your
server has something like
"index.html,index.htm,default.html,default.htm " in it, in which case the
server would look first for index.html, then the other names in order,
regardless of how they were physically stored on the hard disk. The
operating system of the end user would not come into play at all.
That second frame, can have
<frame name=main src="subdirectory/index.htm">


Or, better, src="subdirectory/", which would cause the default index to
be served without having to specify the particular filename.
Using SET THEORY, I had assumed that there was the SET OF HTM and
separately the SET OF HTML.
I don't think any of the HTML or HTTP standards are defined in terms of
set theory... :)

And, actually, under the standards, file extensions are irrelevant; they
are operating-system-specific details relating to file systems, but have
no specific relevance to HTTP or HTML standards. The server is supposed
to serve HTML data using content type (MIME type) "text/html", which
signals the browser to render it as HTML. The filename doesn't matter.
I do, aesthetically, prefer ".html" over ".htm" because the
four-letter extension is more "proper" (it's HyperText Markup LANGUAGE),
and it's been over half a decade since I've ever had to use any
antiquated operating systems that couldn't deal with extensions of more
than three letters. (Users of such systems, at any rate, have no
problem using their browsers to access sites that use URLs that wouldn't
be valid filenames for them, due to the independence of server and
client where Web protocols are concerned; any belief that four-letter
extensions in URLs make a site inaccessible to MS-DOS or Win3.1 users is
purely an urban legend.)
When I turned the index page into index.html and the entire existing
site returned to index.htm the Internet Explorer browser delivered the
HTML page. That is to say, Internet Explorer does not recognise TWO
separate sets.
And what does Mozilla or Opera do? Are you assuming that all your users
use that crappy Microsoft product? Anyway, as I've said above, the
important decisionmaking in this case takes place at the server end, so
the end-user's browser is irrelevant.
Internet Explorer accepts either HTM or HTML as hypertext. This then
creates the SET OF HYPERTEXT. HTM and HTML are all merged within this
set, and the file-extension is ignored in future.
If it's served as MIME type "text/html", it should be accepted as HTML
even if the filename is ".murgatroyd". However, given MSIE's infamous
MIME second-guessing (in violation of standards), I wouldn't necessarily
trust it to render correctly a document with an oddball extension, even
sent with the proper MIME type. Mozilla would work fine, though.
Turning to the set of all Hypertext, Internet Explorer then selects
"index".

You ASK for "index.htm", you GET "index.html".


You get what the server chooses to send. It's not the browser that's
deciding to get different filenames than what was requested, but the
server might be configurable to do so.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...
No, you don't have to advertise anything again.
How many different addresses were advertised? Only louis and
canstatt?
MASSES of items were advertised, in different ways - for example, the
simple GIF animation tool appears either as a GIF tool or as a FREE
SOFTWARE item. So, the entries may not be so easy to update.

People also make links to the site. The Addison section is medical,
but BIOGRAPHICAL sites have linked to it. The 3D site is quoted
elsewhere.

I HAVE GIVEN UP ON FRAMES.


Congratulations!
My reason is NOT prejudice.
I don't think anyone gives up frames for reasons of
prejudice ;-)
It is as follows:

My GOOGLE entry went BLANK. I copied this to a hard disk, and started
mofifying it. I put "BODY Hi /BODY" in angle brackets, and "Hi"
appeared.

I moved it down to the "FRAMESET" command. Above it, it appeared.
Below, it was gone.

I moved further down to the "NOFRAMES" section. Even here, the "Hi"
failed to materialise.

GOOGLE is an important search engine. If you want people to see your
pages, you have to avoid frames.

I do not know how others who have frames succeed in appearing in
GOOGLE. Maybe they use some form of redirection.
No, the site I first made, about 8 months ago, has frames,
and it shows up in Google. No tricks, no redirections.
However, it only links to the pages in the frames, not to
complete pages, so people do find the site through Google,
but they are linked to a page without header or menu. All
the pages have a link to the frameset page, though, so
they're not absolutely lost.
But it indeed is far from ideal, that's one of the reasons
I'm working on a frameless version.
Anyway, the burden of
problems is too great just for the sake of a row of buttons and a
neater Moiré effect.

Search-engine presence is vital. I cannot afford the risks.


I think you mentioned just about all the reasons people get
thrown at their heads in this news group (and others) when
they mention the wish to create a website with frames in it :-D

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Els wrote:
I think you mentioned just about all the reasons people get thrown at
their heads in this news group (and others) when they mention the wish
to create a website with frames in it :-D


I list a few of those reasons in my site:
http://webtips.dan.info/frames.html

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
So I gave up, did I?

NO!!

Go to http://wehner.org/frames
That one gives the html source code, and if I put a '/'
behind it, it gives a 404...
The file that used to be index.html, and used to define frames, is now
known simply as "filename." - as "6.0" - as "frames".

You get FRAMES when you ASK for them. Otherwise, you don't.


That's almost as good as not using frames at all ;-)
--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Els <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message news:<bk*********@reader1.tiscali.nl>...

Go to http://wehner.org/frames
That one gives the html source code,


OK - I created THREE subsets for the HYPERTEXT. These are those files
that end in an ".htm", those files that end in an ".html" and those
files that have NO extension.

Most browsers offer a choice when an unknown filename extension (eg
"xyz") is offered, but can be made to default to NOTEPAD or similar.
Your browser is doing this, with filename extension "" (blank).

My browser had displayed the correct image on blank extensions.

So having NO filename extension was a BAD idea. I have to return to my
original standard of all hypertext being ".htm".

and if I put a '/'
behind it, it gives a 404...


If a "/" is put after a filename, it suggests a DIRECTORY. So I had
another TRICK UP MY SLEEVE. I simply created a directory "frames", and
put the old hypertext-with-frames page in there as "index.htm".

TRY IT NOW. It works as http://wehner.org/frames , as
http://wehner.org/frames/ , or as http://wehner.org/frames/index.htm .

I could even add a copy called "index.html", but that would be
OVERKILL.

You get FRAMES when you ASK for them. Otherwise, you don't.


That's almost as good as not using frames at all ;-)


MY GOOGLE ENTRY IS BACK - instead of a blank page. That is what made
me decide to keep the main entry-point of the site frame-free.

Frame enthusiasts need only add the word "/frames" to the address.

Frames are a fact of life - they are everywhere. However, I believe in
keeping things simple without keeping them boring.

Interesting effects should be displayable - but not at the cost of
incompatability.

I SEMI-SURRENDERED to the "No-Frames" lobby.

In passing, may I say, "Els", how I very much appreciate your help in
this.
Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
"Daniel R. Tobias" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message news:<ya********************@news2.news.adelphia.n et>...

Actually, they're http://wehner.org/addison/louis/ and
http://wehner.org/addison/canstatt/ -- note the trailing slash. The
slashless versions merely cause a server redirect to the correct URLs.
I would not say that one or the other is "RIGHT". What happens is, if
there is no filename extension it is assumed to be a directory
containing an index file. I would have to check the W3C specifications
to find out what is considered the norm - but browser-makers do not
stick to standards, and one has to consider the de-facto norm as well.

Also, for multiple language versions, you might consider using content
language negotiation; see info:
http://webtips.dan.info/language.html
I do not have multiple-language VERSIONS, but different languages in
different SECTIONS.

I could, at some time in the future arrange for the ENVIRONMENT
VARIABLES to steer the server to a language VERSION. At the moment, I
am keeping it simple.

There are many different operating systems, so the dual HTM/HTML index
files might work on one system but not on another.
The end user's operating system is of no relevance to which page gets
served; it's a server-side thing. The end user has no way of knowing
the actual filenames of the pages that are served; only the server knows
for sure.


I was, actually, talking about one SERVER system or another. That is,
one cannot be sure what the Service Provider has provided at this
level - and what the defaults are. So when one has TWO index files -
".htm" and ".html" it may be upredictable at the SERVER end.
There's a configuration setting for Web servers that tells them what
default index filenames to look for, and in what order; perhaps your
server has something like
"index.html,index.htm,default.html,default.htm " in it, in which case the
server would look first for index.html, then the other names in order,
regardless of how they were physically stored on the hard disk. The
operating system of the end user would not come into play at all.


Yes - EXACTLY - I do not have time to interrogate my service provider
about the configurations.

Using SET THEORY, I had assumed that there was the SET OF HTM and
separately the SET OF HTML.


I don't think any of the HTML or HTTP standards are defined in terms of
set theory... :)


THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE WEB. Only a CLOSED set can be protected
against viruses. They have rushed into the development of the Web with
an OPEN set - wide OPEN to bugs and viruses.

The solution to my problem is at http://wehner.org/frames - it is a
directory "frames" with an "index.htm" in it, which defines frames.
I LOOKED IN ON YOUR SITE, Dan

NICE SITE!!

Thanks for your help.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
On 21 Sep 2003 07:47:52 -0700, ch***********@hotmail.com (Charles
Douglas Wehner) wrote:
"Daniel R. Tobias" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message news:<ya********************@news2.news.adelphia.n et>...

Actually, they're http://wehner.org/addison/louis/ and
http://wehner.org/addison/canstatt/ -- note the trailing slash. The
slashless versions merely cause a server redirect to the correct URLs.


I would not say that one or the other is "RIGHT". What happens is, if
there is no filename extension it is assumed to be a directory
containing an index file.


Ah, no.
The browser interacts with the server and nothing in this respect is
assumed by the browser.

--
Bob
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Robert G. Eldridge wrote:

The browser interacts with the server and nothing in this respect is
assumed by the browser.


Unless it's IE, of course. Then anything is possible.

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
Els
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
In passing, may I say, "Els", how I very much appreciate your help in
this.


You're welcome :-)

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +1000, "Mark Parnell"
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
Robert G. Eldridge wrote:

The browser interacts with the server and nothing in this respect is
assumed by the browser.


Unless it's IE, of course. Then anything is possible.


You should have noted that I said browser, making no reference to an
operating system component that is not eligible to be a browser.

--
Bob
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Robert G. Eldridge wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +1000, "Mark Parnell":
Unless it's IE, of course. Then anything is possible.


You should have noted that I said browser, making no reference to an
operating system component that is not eligible to be a browser.


Oh, it's a _browser_ alright; what's more doubtful is its status
as a _web_ browser - and even more doubtful as a WWW browser.

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk>...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Robert G. Eldridge wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +1000, "Mark Parnell":
Unless it's IE, of course. Then anything is possible.


You should have noted that I said browser, making no reference to an
operating system component that is not eligible to be a browser.


Oh, it's a _browser_ alright; what's more doubtful is its status
as a _web_ browser - and even more doubtful as a WWW browser.


Many years ago, I sent a suggestion to NETSCAPE that they take their
files and create a CUT-DOWN browser especially for INTERNET CAFÉS.

Gill Bates and his confederates leave EVERYTHING wide open. You can
change all settings - which means that one customer at an Internet
café ruins things for the next.

Also, it used to be the case that there were PASSWORDS everywhere. Why
does an Internet café customer need a password to do what he has PAID
for?

Cutting down a browser and so creating a "CLOSED SET" of facilities
which will only do what café customers want - even to the point of
denying access to the operating system - makes sense.

Closing the set makes it easy to virus-protect the system.

It was never done, and the explosive growth of Internet cafés shows
that a large market niche has been ignored. It also means that
Internet cafés are very variable in their performance. The best have
OCCASIONAL down-time, perhaps due to world-wide system overload (eg
Melissa). The worst are a breeding-ground for viruses.

I did not trouble to write to Microsoft. ALL their systems are
wide-open to abuse, and variable in their performance.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
On 25 Sep 2003 05:10:27 -0700, ch***********@hotmail.com (Charles
Douglas Wehner) wrote:
Gill Bates and his confederates leave EVERYTHING wide open. You can
change all settings - which means that one customer at an Internet
café ruins things for the next.
This is simply incompetent configuration by the cafe, IE has numerous
methods to be locked down to prevent changes of the settings, you can
even generate custom installers to make roll outs of such IE's easy.
Cutting down a browser and so creating a "CLOSED SET" of facilities
which will only do what café customers want - even to the point of
denying access to the operating system - makes sense.


Indeed, and IE provides those configuration options.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
ch***********@hotmail.com (Charles Douglas Wehner) wrote in message news:<e3*************************@posting.google.c om>...
Many years ago, I sent a suggestion to NETSCAPE that they take their
files and create a CUT-DOWN browser especially for INTERNET CAFÉS.


Mozilla is open-source, so anyone who cares to, and is sufficiently
skilled at programming, can attempt to create a cut-down browser based
on the Mozilla code base for such purposes.

--
Dan
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
I wrote:
Many years ago, I sent a suggestion to NETSCAPE that they take their
files and create a CUT-DOWN browser especially for INTERNET CAFÉS.
Gill Bates and his confederates leave EVERYTHING wide open. You can
change all settings - which means that one customer at an Internet
café ruins things for the next.


ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<3f**************@news.cis.dfn.de>... This is simply incompetent configuration by the cafe, IE has numerous
methods to be locked down to prevent changes of the settings, you can
even generate custom installers to make roll outs of such IE's easy.

OF COURSE they are incompetent. They are cafés first, and "scientists"
only by apiration.

One café I visited in London was "hopping" with viruses. You click for
a browser and get three or five at once. Then the system locks up.

The husband-and-wife team divorced. The husband took a stringy-floppy
backup and created ANOTHER café with IDENTICAL viruses. Even when he
ran out of money and the telephone lines were cut, he hoped that
customers would not notice. This went on for a MONTH. Then, when virus
warnings appeared, he instructed his staff to close the window quickly
before the customers see.

His "technical director" even WAITED for the viruses to "GO AWAY" - as
if computers had an immune system and would recover from a virus as an
animal does.

A Somali in London asked my advice. "I have been involved in computers
since 1962, and STILL do not know everything. I have seen people
driven out of business by technical problems. DO NOT GET INVOLVED
UNLESS YOU ARE EXPERIENCED", I said.

This was like a red rag to a bull. He and his brother RUSHED to buy
computers, and set up a café that was within days RIDDLED with bugs.
Then they attended a beginners' course (how to switch on &c.). Then
they put signs everywhere "A and B COMPUTING CONSULTANTS - FULLY
QUALIFIED ENGINEERS". All within WEEKS.

Their main game was to set "permissions". Thus, directories and files
could be CREATED but not ERASED. Their systems ran out of memory.

One major problem that crops up is when a customer leaves without
closing the e-mail. The next customer can read the letters and tamper
- such as erase everything.

The worst is that naughty boys can simply erase vital files, like the
DLLs, so that NOTHING works properly.
da*@tobias.name (Daniel R. Tobias) wrote in message news:<aa**************************@posting.google. com>... ch***********@hotmail.com (Charles Douglas Wehner) wrote in message news:<e3*************************@posting.google.c om>... Mozilla is open-source, so anyone who cares to, and is sufficiently
skilled at programming, can attempt to create a cut-down browser based
on the Mozilla code base for such purposes.


YES!!!! I had almost forgotten.

When I created my FRAME-FREE website, I tested it on Lynx. This was
created by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the
University of Illinois.

It was EDIT with LINKS (Lynx... geddit!! har,har,har). Those links
would fetch data from the Internet INSTEAD OF the keyboard. The
Internet would do the typing, not the user.

Then they made MOSAIC. This was Lynx with PICTURES. I tested my site
with an early Mosaic.

Then they started developing a MONSTER - a Godzilla, or rather, SON OF
MOSAIC known as MOZILLA (har,har,har).

The US government found itself creating a non-profit SYSTEMS HOUSE in
competition with Bill Gates. It had become a monster, and had to go.

The researchers set up NETSCAPE, and built upon Mozilla.

Then Microsoft decided to sabotage the marketing of Netscape, by
giving away IE.

Meanwhile, MOZILLA remained in the public domain - and enthusiasts
were encouraged to develop it. Mozilla is a VITAL contribution to
public education - without it, private companies could keep the
workings of the Internet and of its tools SECRET, and so sabotage
competition.

What is needed for Internet cafés is a browser that does not need
configuring for e-mail (as Outlook Express does). One must be able to
SURF and to do E-MAIL. These are the two main functions of an Internet
Café today - a "library" and a "telegraph office".

Desk-top-publishing is another vital feature.

Given these facilities, one creates a "virtual trash-can". Everything
that is to be erased is simply put in a directory. So, too, is the
history list. When the customer goes, the whole package goes into the
REAL trash-can as "TRASH1".

The next customer gets "TRASH2", and so on.

If a person forgets to close his e-mail, the staff - using the ONLY
password that is needed - recover "TRASH1", and reopen the system from
its history list. In this way, a customer can return to close his
e-mail safely.

FTP for webmasters and other features are nice - but at some point,
one has to CLOSE THE SET.

Machine-code must not run. It will only allow viruses in. So, the
system will allow anonymous data to be shuttled around, but not
activated. Also TXT, GIF, JPG, HTML and other standard data is
accepted - but as DATA.

There would be a problem with automatic updating of DLLs or other
programs - but then, this is of COMMERCIAL BENEFIT. If Microsoft sell
a system for, say, sixty dollars, a browser vendor can sell a SEALED
one for just SIX - secure in the knowledge that it is OBSOLESCENT, and
the customer may end up buying TEN´as they become updated.

Browsers of this kind would be sold in the SHOPS, so there is no way
that malicious code masquerading as genuine browsers can be delivered
over the Internet.

A vital feature of a safe browser is that the "warm boot" is
redirected straight back to the browser. Thus, there would be no way
that a naught child can tamper with the operating system - which
remains HIDDEN under the browser.

If anybody wants to develop such a system, then as Daniel R. Tobias
says, the source files are AVAILABLE.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
Charles Douglas Wehner wrote:
When I created my FRAME-FREE website, I tested it on Lynx. This was
created by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the
University of Illinois.
Actually, Lynx was created at the University of Kansas.
It was EDIT with LINKS (Lynx... geddit!! har,har,har). Those links
would fetch data from the Internet INSTEAD OF the keyboard. The
Internet would do the typing, not the user.
Links is actually a completely different text-mode browser from Lynx.
(Confusing, isn't it?)
Then they made MOSAIC. This was Lynx with PICTURES. I tested my site
with an early Mosaic.
Mosaic was created at the University of Illinois, and had no connection
with Lynx other than their both being early Web browsers.
Then they started developing a MONSTER - a Godzilla, or rather, SON OF
MOSAIC known as MOZILLA (har,har,har).
Mozilla was the "code name" of Netscape, which was developed by some of
the creators of Mosaic, but they had at that point left the university
to form a new company, originally called Mosaic Communications but
renamed Netscape when the university claimed trademark rights to the
name "Mosaic". Mosaic continued to be developed at the university for a
couple of years.
The US government found itself creating a non-profit SYSTEMS HOUSE in
competition with Bill Gates. It had become a monster, and had to go.
I'm not sure if the U.S. government had any involvement with the Mosaic
project; it was at a state university. Was it a federally-funded
project? I'm not sure. Maybe it was just the state of Illinois that
created the monster.
The researchers set up NETSCAPE, and built upon Mozilla.
When the product was released, it was called Netscape Navigator, but it
has always had "Mozilla" in its user agent string, as do most other
browsers these days because they all imitated it to fool clueless
browser sniffers.
Then Microsoft decided to sabotage the marketing of Netscape, by
giving away IE.

Meanwhile, MOZILLA remained in the public domain - and enthusiasts
were encouraged to develop it. Mozilla is a VITAL contribution to
public education - without it, private companies could keep the
workings of the Internet and of its tools SECRET, and so sabotage
competition.
Mozilla wasn't made open-source until Netscape was losing the browser
wars. It's not "public domain", but is released under an open-source
public license so it can be freely shared and modified.
What is needed for Internet cafés is a browser that does not need
configuring for e-mail (as Outlook Express does). One must be able to
SURF and to do E-MAIL. These are the two main functions of an Internet
Café today - a "library" and a "telegraph office".
Web-based mail systems (including the open-source SquirrelMail program,
which can run on a Web server and give users access to their mail) make
e-mail accessible without configuration on any browser.
Desk-top-publishing is another vital feature.

Given these facilities, one creates a "virtual trash-can". Everything
that is to be erased is simply put in a directory. So, too, is the
history list. When the customer goes, the whole package goes into the
REAL trash-can as "TRASH1".

The next customer gets "TRASH2", and so on.

If a person forgets to close his e-mail, the staff - using the ONLY
password that is needed - recover "TRASH1", and reopen the system from
its history list. In this way, a customer can return to close his
e-mail safely.


If the system empties the trash every time a user leaves, there's no
need to come back and close anything; it'll be taken care of automatically.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
"Daniel R. Tobias" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message news:<3I********************@news2.news.adelphia.n et>...

Actually, Lynx was created at the University of Kansas.
It was EDIT with LINKS (Lynx... geddit!! har,har,har). Those links
would fetch data from the Internet INSTEAD OF the keyboard. The
Internet would do the typing, not the user.


Links is actually a completely different text-mode browser from Lynx.
(Confusing, isn't it?)


OK - I did not know that the original Lynx came from Kansas.

The point is that it came from PUBLIC MONEY in the US - whether
federally or state funded is immaterial to me as a foreigner.

Academic do not get any credits for re-inventing the wheel, so the
MOSAIC browser grew out of the LYNX browser. There are many products
in the commercial world, and many attempts at snatching the market -
so that there is also a LINKS does not surprise me.

My early MOSAIC is conspicuously a development of LYNX. The same look
and feel, just more features. Similarly, an early NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR
is conspicuously a development from MOSAIC.

When I tested my site for compatibility with early browsers, the
HTTP_USER_AGENT parameter of Mosaic and N. Navigator was always
MOZILLA. The browser I am using now says "HTTP_USER_AGENT is set to
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" - I.E. always says "M.
compatible".

The point I was making, therefore, was the history of development.

That which is paid for out of public money in the States belongs to
the public (except, it seems, the ARMY - which belongs to the oil
thieves).

So LYNX and MOSAIC were always in the public domain.

The files could only be handed over, however, when there was somebody
to give them TO - the MOSAIC development team.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a


"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote:

Then they made MOSAIC. This was Lynx with PICTURES. I tested my site
with an early Mosaic.
Mosaic was created at the University of Illinois, and had no connection
with Lynx other than their both being early Web browsers.

Actually, Lynx was originally not a web browser, but
another furry campus information system at a midwestern (USA)
university--Panda (Iowa) and Gopher (Minnesota) were others.
After a successful run at Kansas, Lynx was retooled so that
it could speak HTTP and read WWW pages. See
http://www.ku.edu/~grobe/early-lynx.html

--
Warren Steel
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
Department of Music University of Mississippi
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
Warren Steel <mu***@olemiss.edu> wrote in message news:<3F***************@olemiss.edu>...
Actually, Lynx was originally not a web browser, but
another furry campus information system at a midwestern (USA)
university--Panda (Iowa) and Gopher (Minnesota) were others.
After a successful run at Kansas, Lynx was retooled so that
it could speak HTTP and read WWW pages. See
http://www.ku.edu/~grobe/early-lynx.html


Thanks for the input.

The point I was making is that there is a large amount of information
in the academic world. Everything develops steps by step, and the
steps become public property.

Microsoft has as much right as Netscape to take those files and
develop them further. So can anybody.

The CHANGES are, however, NOT public property.

So what happens if you CUT DOWN a browser. The product is certainly
new - but made from existing bits. If you do not add something
special, or change the "look and feel", you create a situation where
only lawyers can win.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Jul 20 '05 #35

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.