- From: Volker Kuhlmann <kuhlmav@elec.canterbury.ac.nz>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:53:12 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-amaya@w3.org
Thanks to all those who cc'd me a copy - if this goes to a mailing list I'm not on it. > Also, as I pointed out, the high profile sites that have > been around a long time have almost unanimously eliminated I have no opinion on this > them. It's all the e-business sites. which just copy each You are not in touch with reality :-) There are few sites not using frames. I don't frequent e-business sites. Ok, let's settle on 50-50? That makes amaya useless for half of the web. Not good. (PS I don't care about politics. If *nix wants to cut it on the desktop, ...) Is there any browser besides amaya which doesn't deal in frames? > Frames cause lots of problems for the web model, e.g. standard I never denied they're a PITA. However, they are reality. > To avoid to enter file:// when you are loading a local file it needs > to check the local file system first then access the network. Checking the local file system is considerably faster than checking the web. Also, with all this security stuff coming up, it's much safer too. Chances that there is a file called ./www.myfancysite.bull/somedir/somefile on my disk are practically zero. I dislike software accessing the net by default. > This is eventually just a user preferences question. Personally I'd say that's a waste of time. Chances of conlficts here are so small that I'd be quite prepared to type the http:// in those cases, but this is a minor issue. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann <v.kuhlmann@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> http://volker.orcon.net.nz/
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 03:07:08 UTC