On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:44:08PM +0300, madis wrote:
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Frank de Lange wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/ikbenfrank/dillo-20030804-tabs.patch.gz
dillo with this patch shows only noframes part on some framed sites:
That is caused by the extra <body> tag these sites add (lamlaw has a complete body section - something a frame document should not have, http://www.hot.ee/klubipegasus/ has an extra body tag in the noframes section.) The specs say something like this: Use the <frameset> tag in lieu of a <body> tag in the frame document. You may not include any other content except valid <head> and <frameset> content in a frame document. Combining frames with a conventional document containing <body> may result in unpredictable browser behavior. So, again (this is to the list), should Dillo follow the specs - and thus produce unwanted results - or try to work around the cruft some sites serve? Fixing this would be relatively easy, and the fix can be optional (--enable-pedantic or --enable-quirks or whatever...) By the way, some sites check the browser string to decide what type of content to send, these may also send non-frames content. Same goes for sites which use Javascript to test for browser versions. So even if Dillo has full frame support one day, it can still happen that a site does not serve it (functional) frame documents... Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]