Re: Hiding the URL(was Cart ID Duplication)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2001
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 36807
interpreted = N
texte = You may want to really think hard about what your priorities are regardingframes for the purpose of simply hiding a URL.Frames are great in certain applications but you will pay a usability price.Just sit in front of a 15 monitor running AOL's screen-hogging browser(full of open windows and flashing ads) and then try to run through yoursite using frames - it'll make you think twice - and then consider how manyfolks are running in that exact environment.On the other hand you can use forms to hide the URL or even use apreprocessor (like Welcome) to translate a set of pseudo URLs into a realaddress. That way if someone tries to muck with your site by putting intheir own URL they won't go anywhere anyway. You also have a way of trappingon such attempts - if that is useful to you.HTH-Martyon 6/28/01 9:46 AM, Paul Uttermohlen at Paul@ColumbusRealEstate.com wrote:>> On 6/28/01 11:14 AM, Donovan Brooke
wrote:>> >>> duh, :-) Frames set. thanks for the other suggestions though.>>> Using a frame may help hide the URL but the down side is>>> that maybe all our customers won't support frames???>> Who won't support frames? This was a debate back in 1995, but I think this>> is long past.>> >> Robert Minor>> Director of Internet Services> > Some spiders still don't support frames making framed sites less> attractive to companies that need to be found in the search engines.> Most spiders are still only http 1.0 compliant.> > Not everyone has control over which browser they use. Some corporate> IT/IS departments resist upgrading. Some schools and institutions are> slow to upgrade.> > But I agree with you. These people who do not or cannot upgrade are a> very small portion of potential users. The bar has been lifted> (repeatedly). Make them jump just a little bit higher.> > Paul> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ Paul Uttermohlen, Chief Technical Officer \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ Interactive Ink, Incorporated> \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ mailto:paul@interactiveink.com> \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ > \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_> > -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to> > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
You may want to really think hard about what your priorities are regardingframes for the purpose of simply hiding a URL.Frames are great in certain applications but you will pay a usability price.Just sit in front of a 15 monitor running AOL's screen-hogging browser(full of open windows and flashing ads) and then try to run through yoursite using frames - it'll make you think twice - and then consider how manyfolks are running in that exact environment.On the other hand you can use forms to hide the URL or even use apreprocessor (like Welcome) to translate a set of pseudo URLs into a realaddress. That way if someone tries to muck with your site by putting intheir own URL they won't go anywhere anyway. You also have a way of trappingon such attempts - if that is useful to you.HTH-Martyon 6/28/01 9:46 AM, Paul Uttermohlen at Paul@ColumbusRealEstate.com wrote:>> On 6/28/01 11:14 AM, Donovan Brooke wrote:>> >>> duh, :-) Frames set. thanks for the other suggestions though.>>> Using a frame may help hide the URL but the down side is>>> that maybe all our customers won't support frames???>> Who won't support frames? This was a debate back in 1995, but I think this>> is long past.>> >> Robert Minor>> Director of Internet Services> > Some spiders still don't support frames making framed sites less> attractive to companies that need to be found in the search engines.> Most spiders are still only http 1.0 compliant.> > Not everyone has control over which browser they use. Some corporate> IT/IS departments resist upgrading. Some schools and institutions are> slow to upgrade.> > But I agree with you. These people who do not or cannot upgrade are a> very small portion of potential users. The bar has been lifted> (repeatedly). Make them jump just a little bit higher.> > Paul> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/|\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ Paul Uttermohlen, Chief Technical Officer \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ Interactive Ink, Incorporated> \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ mailto:paul@interactiveink.com> \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/ > \_\_\_\_> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ | \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_> > -------------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to> > Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Marty Schmid
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
WARNING: MacOS The installer is broken... (2000)
fishing for suggestions (2001)
Problem 2 of 2 (was: Shipping Confusion) (2000)
Re[2]: 2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
multi-paragraph fields (1997)
Quit revisited (1997)
Entry pages (was: WebCatalog MAJOR drawback) (1998)
Web Developer Product Awards (1997)
PCS Frames (1997)
RE: shrink-wrapped version out yet? (1997)
Search wbrk (repost) (2001)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Emailer problems solved (1997)
vars (2000)
OT: Unix Guru Needed (2003)
Error: Error: expected [/APPLICATION] ??? (1998)
Error 551 in Emailer (2000)
form data submission gets truncated (1997)
'does not contain' operator needed ... (1997)
Bug? (1997)