hi,
could you go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/index_fr.htm">http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/index_fr.htm</a><!-- m -->
then in the menu choose : Disciplines/Cours.
and tell me why this |Top| link (the first one of the page) acts so weird, actually this link should(and does sometime)have his bg turn black, as you can see on the following |Top| links.
the difference between this link and the others is that i used javascript in the first one, does javascript make css have trouble?
hope you can help me.Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
then in the menu choose : Disciplines/Cours.
The menu is very, very, very small; so small that I cannot read it. Can you provide a direct link to the page in question?actually, i just tried it with AOL, and its working fine, damn IE always has problems.the other weird thing is that when i click the link, it has those little dots around it as when u click an image. and when there are those dots around the |Top|, the background doesnt turn black,
so i actually suspect that IE doesnt show those little dots, but that its this that makes the link behave weird. because actually when u click on the link and then click elwhere on the page and go on the link again, it will turn black.Originally posted by Paul Jr
The menu is very, very, very small; so small that I cannot read it. Can you provide a direct link to the page in question?
is it that small?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/content/disciplines/cours/cours_fr.htmI">http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/content/disci ... rs_fr.htmI</a><!-- m --> looked at the page and everything seemed all right to me.
And yes, the menu is very small. See attached screenshot. Sorry for the poor quality; I am on another computer, with only MS Paint (had to save it as a .gif to keep the filesize down).waaa!thats not small, thats tiny, oh my, what happend to my menu..doesnt look like this hereNo. Not tiny. Miniscule. And I would view source to see what's up... but there's the issue of you using frames. Anti-search engine abuse, deprecated tags, SSIs... all that, you know? ^_<sorry omega, but i didnt understand what you meantNo problem, I just talk confoozing.
I meant that frames hurt your search engine rankings, have been deprecated by the W3C, and Server Side Includes do their job much better than frames could ever hope for.
i do not master SSI, and for this site frames where pretty intresting for the language switching. But thank you, i ll inform myself about SSI.Originally posted by omega
No problem, I just talk confoozing.
I meant that frames hurt your search engine rankings, have been deprecated by the W3C, and Server Side Includes do their job much better than frames could ever hope for.
Wow, dude, major foot-in-mouth there. Frames have not been deprecated.
But, frames are bad for search engine rankings, and it makes it quite difficult to bookmark a page.well, when you go to the page, you dont go directly to the frameset, but to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net">http://dfglfa.net</a><!-- m --> or <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net/dfg">http://dfglfa.net/dfg</a><!-- m --> which arent frame pages, so i think its okay for bookmarking and search engines.Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
well, when you go to the page, you dont go directly to the frameset, but to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net">http://dfglfa.net</a><!-- m --> or <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net/dfg">http://dfglfa.net/dfg</a><!-- m --> which arent frame pages, so i think its okay for bookmarking and search engines.
But once browsing through the website via the page containing the frameset, if the user wants to bookmark a page, all that will happen is he/she will end up bookmarking the frameset page, with the default documents loaded into each frame.Paul- you oculd've just told me that on YIM, y'no... not correct me here.
Sorry, I thought they'd been deprecated. They just should be. Sorry again.whata actcually SSI?Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
whata actcually SSI?
Say what?!?well, whats SSI?server side includes
its a very VERY basic form of scripts like PHP and ASP.and, in what could that replace frames?its okay actually, this threat maybe has an answer for me :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41828Well">http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showt ... =41828Well</a><!-- m -->, say you want each page to look exactly the same, and have the same navigation. But, you want to make the siite easy to update. You save everything from the top of the html file, to just above where you want the site's content to be in a seperate file, let's say header.inc, and maybe even a footer.inc for all coding after content. Now on each page, you save it as .shtml and use:
<!--#include file="header.inc" -->
<p>Content Here</p>
<!--#include file="footer.inc" -->
When somebody views the page, the get the contents of header.inc, the contents of the page, and then the contents of footer.inc, so all your pages are the same. A change to header.inc changes ALL the pages. Plus, they're search engine friendly...
Edit: Oops, a tad bit late...thank you anyway dude!
what does shtml stand for?frames may not have been deprecated but I don't think they're in the xhtml standard...Frames are available in XHTML 1.0 if you use *shudders* XHTML 1.0 Frameset DTD.
The .shtml is a different extension. Much like .php .cgi .asp .aspx .jsp, it tells the server that this is a special page. It stands for Server-parsed HTML. It tells the server, "Hey! This page needs to be parsed! You see the commands in this page? Parse them!" And since the server does it, it doesn't matter what browser your visitors are using..cool, thank youOriginally posted by MstrBob
Frames are available in XHTML 1.0 if you use *shudders* XHTML 1.0 Frameset DTD.
Not 1.1 tho thankfully...Yeah, XHTML 1.1 is cool. Only 1 DTD, and it's uber strict. I wonder how long before XHTML 2.0 will be finished and there will be browser support for it...
could you go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/index_fr.htm">http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/index_fr.htm</a><!-- m -->
then in the menu choose : Disciplines/Cours.
and tell me why this |Top| link (the first one of the page) acts so weird, actually this link should(and does sometime)have his bg turn black, as you can see on the following |Top| links.
the difference between this link and the others is that i used javascript in the first one, does javascript make css have trouble?
hope you can help me.Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
then in the menu choose : Disciplines/Cours.
The menu is very, very, very small; so small that I cannot read it. Can you provide a direct link to the page in question?actually, i just tried it with AOL, and its working fine, damn IE always has problems.the other weird thing is that when i click the link, it has those little dots around it as when u click an image. and when there are those dots around the |Top|, the background doesnt turn black,
so i actually suspect that IE doesnt show those little dots, but that its this that makes the link behave weird. because actually when u click on the link and then click elwhere on the page and go on the link again, it will turn black.Originally posted by Paul Jr
The menu is very, very, very small; so small that I cannot read it. Can you provide a direct link to the page in question?
is it that small?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/content/disciplines/cours/cours_fr.htmI">http://www.dfglfa.net/dfg/content/disci ... rs_fr.htmI</a><!-- m --> looked at the page and everything seemed all right to me.
And yes, the menu is very small. See attached screenshot. Sorry for the poor quality; I am on another computer, with only MS Paint (had to save it as a .gif to keep the filesize down).waaa!thats not small, thats tiny, oh my, what happend to my menu..doesnt look like this hereNo. Not tiny. Miniscule. And I would view source to see what's up... but there's the issue of you using frames. Anti-search engine abuse, deprecated tags, SSIs... all that, you know? ^_<sorry omega, but i didnt understand what you meantNo problem, I just talk confoozing.
I meant that frames hurt your search engine rankings, have been deprecated by the W3C, and Server Side Includes do their job much better than frames could ever hope for.
i do not master SSI, and for this site frames where pretty intresting for the language switching. But thank you, i ll inform myself about SSI.Originally posted by omega No problem, I just talk confoozing.
I meant that frames hurt your search engine rankings, have been deprecated by the W3C, and Server Side Includes do their job much better than frames could ever hope for.
Wow, dude, major foot-in-mouth there. Frames have not been deprecated.
But, frames are bad for search engine rankings, and it makes it quite difficult to bookmark a page.well, when you go to the page, you dont go directly to the frameset, but to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net">http://dfglfa.net</a><!-- m --> or <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net/dfg">http://dfglfa.net/dfg</a><!-- m --> which arent frame pages, so i think its okay for bookmarking and search engines.Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
well, when you go to the page, you dont go directly to the frameset, but to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net">http://dfglfa.net</a><!-- m --> or <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dfglfa.net/dfg">http://dfglfa.net/dfg</a><!-- m --> which arent frame pages, so i think its okay for bookmarking and search engines.
But once browsing through the website via the page containing the frameset, if the user wants to bookmark a page, all that will happen is he/she will end up bookmarking the frameset page, with the default documents loaded into each frame.Paul- you oculd've just told me that on YIM, y'no... not correct me here.
Sorry, I thought they'd been deprecated. They just should be. Sorry again.whata actcually SSI?Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
whata actcually SSI?
Say what?!?well, whats SSI?server side includes
its a very VERY basic form of scripts like PHP and ASP.and, in what could that replace frames?its okay actually, this threat maybe has an answer for me :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41828Well">http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showt ... =41828Well</a><!-- m -->, say you want each page to look exactly the same, and have the same navigation. But, you want to make the siite easy to update. You save everything from the top of the html file, to just above where you want the site's content to be in a seperate file, let's say header.inc, and maybe even a footer.inc for all coding after content. Now on each page, you save it as .shtml and use:
<!--#include file="header.inc" -->
<p>Content Here</p>
<!--#include file="footer.inc" -->
When somebody views the page, the get the contents of header.inc, the contents of the page, and then the contents of footer.inc, so all your pages are the same. A change to header.inc changes ALL the pages. Plus, they're search engine friendly...
Edit: Oops, a tad bit late...thank you anyway dude!
what does shtml stand for?frames may not have been deprecated but I don't think they're in the xhtml standard...Frames are available in XHTML 1.0 if you use *shudders* XHTML 1.0 Frameset DTD.
The .shtml is a different extension. Much like .php .cgi .asp .aspx .jsp, it tells the server that this is a special page. It stands for Server-parsed HTML. It tells the server, "Hey! This page needs to be parsed! You see the commands in this page? Parse them!" And since the server does it, it doesn't matter what browser your visitors are using..cool, thank youOriginally posted by MstrBob
Frames are available in XHTML 1.0 if you use *shudders* XHTML 1.0 Frameset DTD.
Not 1.1 tho thankfully...Yeah, XHTML 1.1 is cool. Only 1 DTD, and it's uber strict. I wonder how long before XHTML 2.0 will be finished and there will be browser support for it...