Thomas Wouters wrote on 950230906:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 09:14:52PM +0100, Gerrit Holl wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote on 950200274:
(It might be even worth it to take a look at a frames interface, possibly ?)
Noooo! Please don't! Sorry, but I really, really hate frames for several reasons.
I hate the whole smegging world wide web for mostly the same sort of reasons. Nevertheless, the Common User might appreciate, might even greatly appreciate, a frame-style interface.
The Common User might appreciate flash also. www.nielsonline.nl is a perfect example of a page from hell.
* I want to be able to admin my site in lynx, since I often haven't booted X and want to administrate fast,This i consider a valid reason, and i concur. But the frame-style interface would, of bloody course, be _optional_.
Optional per list or optional per site? I hope the former, since I wouldn't want to administer a list through frames...
* it's neither in the HTML 4.01, nor in the XHTML 1.0 dtd. There's a seperate DTD for it. I think we should conform the HTML to XHTML 1.0 anyway (comments?),This might be a valid reason, but i dont follow the standards business regarding the WWW anymore. HTML 1.0 was ok, 1.1 had neat tricks but wasn't a real standard, and it just went downhill from there ;)
Put www.yahoo.com in validator.w3.org :)
* it's not possible to bookmark a frames page, you can't bookmark the combination of the frames, * in netscape, the images button doesn't work on frames, * the sidebar needs to use javascript, and javascript is hard to maintain, * it's often unclear which frame you selected, so scrolling is hard, * you can't have a quick look at the HTML source code (I use to do that very often).These are pure browser bugs. Fix the browser, get a different one, complain to the author, or avoid frame-based pages ;)
I _do_ have the source code, but my computer isn't fast enough to compile, let alone to debug... and I don't know enough C to understand Mozilla... Let's wait til the others fix it :)
I'd rather administrate my lists by email than using frames! Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating, but please, no frames!
Hey, like I said, I dont like the web. I would honestly prefer an (optional, etc, yahdah yahdah) email-based administration system for everything but the configuration. (In fact, email-based responses to admin-requests are one thing still on my personal TODO-drool-list) And the configuration is preferably done via a text file, not a webpage ;) (i wont be adding that to my TODO list, though.) The reason I like mailman, and one of the reason we are changing from majordomo to mailman, is that we run the service for customers as well as for ourselves, and our customers would be in heaven with Mailman. (Will be in heaven. ;)
It also just has more features.
And I'm not talking about frames just for the layout, by the way. You can use frames to change part of the displayed page without reloading the whole thing, without erasing parts of a form you have filled in in another part of the page.
Oh... Inline frames??
For instance (just a thing i just made up now) the posting-approve admin interface could be a list of requests, each with the same buttons as now, plus three extra buttons per posting: display headers, body, or both (and perhaps a 'limited headers' setting with the body to show only the headers most email programs show) -- and the requested parts would be shown in a seperate frame.
In order to do that without frames, and not lose form data, would be either to make the things pop up in another browser window (is that a standard HTML extention, by the way ? Mailman already uses it)
If it isn't javascript, it's HTML 3.2.
which is, IMHO, worse than frames, or by making all those 'view' buttons be form submit buttons, and have the python script display the requested parts plus all form data.
I agree with everyone who says 'HTML is not intended for interactive use', I agree completely. The problem is, Mailman _is_ using it interactively ;)
Hmm... what about using sockets for clients? We could write a socket server with commands like "SUBSCRIBE", "UNSUBSCRIBE", "SET" or "UNSET" for users or "PASSWORD", "SET", "UNSET" or "POSTERS". We could create a client for the people not wanting frames than...
regards, Gerrit.
-- Homepage: http://www.nl.linux.org/~gerrit -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com Version: 3.12 GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O !M !V PS+ PE? Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- moc.edockeeg.www//:ptth