[l2h] Wrong TITLEs in frames' *_tf.html files, any fix available?
Ross MOORE
Ross MOORE <ross@ics.mq.edu.au>
Mon, 17 May 1999 18:12:17 +1000 (EST)
Thanks for the input Uli.
I was hoping you would respond.
>
> Ross> The problem is just a little deeper than this. The variable
> Ross> $indexname is never defined, anywhere! It occurs for
> Ross> frame-documents with an Index-view, and also (erroneously,
> Ross> as you say) for those with a Contents-view.
>
> Ross> The real question is: What should these frameset pages be
> Ross> TITLEd ?
>
> what about having the title to state what the frame is about, or to
> have the url of content_view? In practice it happens e.g. that the
> bot indexes file_ct.html (if he does at all). If a user follows this
> link from a search engine, he will end up on the desired page, however
> without any navigation facilities, or any means to see the structure
> of the document.
Yes, these are the sort of practical problems that should be
addressed, if at all possible.
But putting a full URL in the <TITLE> is surely not the way to do it.
BTW, the structure of frame-documents produced by LaTeX2HTML
is currently:
<!DOCTYPE ....>
<HTML>
<FRAMESET ....>
<FRAME....>
...
<NOFRAMES>
<HEAD>
...
</HEAD>
<BODY>
....
....
</BODY>
</NOFRAMES>
</FRAMESET>
</HTML>
Would this be better arranged as follows?
<!DOCTYPE ....>
<HTML>
<HEAD>
....
</HEAD>
<FRAMESET ....>
<FRAME....>
...
<NOFRAMES>
<BODY>
....
....
</BODY>
</NOFRAMES>
</FRAMESET>
</HTML>
>
> There are several approaches to resolve this problem. E.g., we might
> put the needed information in the Title attribute like
>
> a) Contents Frame of http://.../file_tf.html
Do you mean the ... to be replaced with the full URL ?
If so, then I say no --- too long.
I'm sympathetic to leaving the dots as is, so that a relative
reference is implied; but then why not just
"Contents Frame of file_tf.html " ?
But even this doesn't give any indication of what the contents
are about, if you happened to link to this Frameset page.
Does this matter ?
Why did an indexer find this page and not file_tf.html itself ?
>
> b) Provide a link in any frame to the current tf_frame
Interesting idea. Where should it go,
to not look offensive when the view is already from the tf_frame ?
Is this acceptable, at the very top, preceding the <H1>...</H1> ?
<P ALIGN="RIGHT">
<SMALL><A HREF="file_tf.html">Frames view</A></SMALL>
</P>
> c) Have tables instead of frames, which provides simple means of
> avoiding all this (no offence here Ross ;-)
None taken ;-)
... but then it wouldn't be needing frame.pl , would it ?
If someone wants to devise such a "column" view of a document,
within a <TABLE>, then the source could be named columns.pl .
By all means use frame.pl as a model for it.
The TOC and/or Index can be included using an <IFRAME> tag.
For that matter, you could access the contents via an <IFRAME>
as well; are there any real differences then to Frameset views?
e.g.
1. <table> columns aren't resizable within the window,
the way frames are, to see more or less of a wide TOC or Index,
2. there wouldn't be the ability to reduce the 4-frame views
to a 3-frame one.
Is there a way to direct robots to indexing just the file_tf.html ?
Is this desirable ?
Further comments welcome.
Regards,
Ross Moore