[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: avoid to embed
From: |
Davi Leal |
Subject: |
Re: avoid to embed |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:29:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.5 |
Coping the markup is not legal, but embedding in a frame could depend on
jurisdiction.
After thinking again about it, I think we should avoid others add, for
example, an advertising frame at head and our website in the other one.
Victor Engmark wrote:
> I believe the default behavior when there is
> no @target is the same as using _self.
What do you think about overriding such default "_self" with a
default "_top"?, as a measure to try to avoid GNU Herds being embedded into
others frames. It is cheaper on bytes.
"When many links in the same document designate the same
target, it is possible to specify the target once ..."
Ref.: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html#h-16.3.1
<HEAD>
...
<BASE href="http://." target="_top">
</HEAD>
I think we must even keep the JavaScript which add the other measure to try to
avoid it.
Layer-0__Site_entry_point/templates/web_page.tpl
I think they are both good measures. Now, using @target at BASE is cheaper on
bytes. What do you think Victor?
P.S.: Sorry for talking about this again. I just write what I think.
Davi
- Retrofitting markup?, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/13
- Re: XHTML?, Davi Leal, 2007/04/13
- Re: XHTML?, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/13
- Re: XHTML?, Davi Leal, 2007/04/13
- Re: XHTML?, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/14
- Re: no more @target, Davi Leal, 2007/04/14
- Re: no more @target ?, Davi Leal, 2007/04/14
- Re: no more @target ?, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/15
- Re: avoid to embed,
Davi Leal <=
- Re: avoid to embed, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/16
- Re: avoid to embed, Davi Leal, 2007/04/16
- Re: avoid to embed, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/16
- Re: no more @target, Victor Engmark, 2007/04/16
- Re: no more @target, Davi Leal, 2007/04/16