On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 05:13:02PM -0500, Kysh Dragon wrote:
> > In all honesty by NOT checking the frame links which Lynx DOES support, kysh
> > apparently didn't really try very hard. Still, the navigation DOES belong
> > on both pages.
>
> Frames are not HTML complient in this case, therefore in my opinion, they
> don't count. (Before you argue, look at the redhat webpage -- No doctype
> -- No HTML version.
* Theoretically, the !DOCTYPE tag is required while the HTML tag is
not. In fact, most browsers will recognize HTML pages correctly
without either tag and many people do include them. It is a good
idea to alway include both tags in order to ensure that your document
is correctly recognized, regardless of any browser used.
-- HTML for the World Wide Web
Peachpit Press
Fact is, the page is recognized properly in lynx without any ID tags if it
is type text/html It may also recognize .htm and .html in mixed case
(though I suspect it probably understands them only in lowercase and .HTM in
uppercase. If you chose not to follow the frame links then you weren't
really trying too hard IMO.
I know of TWO browsers that can't handle frames: Mosaic and WebExplorer.
These browsers are both so far out of date that they are in the opinion of
myself and many others essentially useless dinosaurs and Lynx is superior to
both even if it lacks graphics support in the others.
You said we couldn't do it. We did and found a bug in their web site in the
process and I personally reported it. Redhat doesn't go out of its way to
make it obvious that you don't have to pay for it, but they do make that
information available within a few links.
Attachment:
pgpeSAuySGAC5.pgp
Description: PGP signature