Re: [NH] Frames
just went to this site it is fine
http://www.rainbowends.org/cadre.htm two frames just the way it should be??
THANKYOU DAVE M
----- Original Message -----
From: "bensbach" <ericbj-mmvii@...>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 1:52 AM
Subject: [NH] Frames
> Some days ago I did a little re-vamping and put some
> additional documents on my website, on a server in the
> UK. The changes cannot be seen here in Thailand. Going
> on past experience it will take about a week for the
> changes to become visible. Have been told that websites
> are cached on servers around the world and these are only
> "refreshed" every so often. (?) Anyway, I cannot yet see
> what bugs the site may have, or even if it is there at
> Frustrating !
> The site, www.rainbow ends.org uses two vertical frames:
> a narrow left-hand one to list content and to the right
> of that the document being viewed.
> I gather that frames are rather disparaged these days,
> but the alternative until something better is widely
> adopted would seem to be tables.
> The problem with tables is:
> 1) I do not have time to go manually updating large
> numbers of files every time the Contents changes
> (optimistically, I hope to do this more often in future,
> the site having been almost unchanged in seven years)
> 2) I do not have any programming skills to automate the
> 3) The content of a table is fixed, while the content of
> a frame can be changed with a mouse click
> At the foot of each document there is a link which now
> goes to a Categories Page which links to several Contents
> Pages. Each of the latter lists files that can be clicked
> on and brought up in the Main Frame.
> Previously there was just a single Contents Page, listing
> all documents (i.e. no Categories). But this made for a
> long and rather indigestible list of documents, which
> would have become longer still with additions.
> In the good old days, a person clicking on "Contents" at
> the bottom of a page would see all the documents
> available. If they came through the Front Page of the
> site, they would see this in the Main Frame, and if they
> came though a search-engine they would see it without any
> frames. Doubtless there was a better way of doing this,
> but at least there were no frames-within-frames.
> Now however, using modern browsers -- IE7 and Opera (not
> having tried with the others) -- this no longer works
> properly if one is not viewing the files from within
> frames. Maybe TARGET="xxx" confuses the browser when
> there is no TARGET="xxx".
> What happens is that the linked file is opened, but the
> focus remains on the existing file.
> With Opera, a new tab appears, but most people would not
> realise this and so would not click on it.
> With IE7, a new window opens, but this is often hidden
> behind the existing window.
> One answer might be to take people to the Frameset page.
> But is there is some way of preventing those already
> viewing within frames from picking up another set of
> frames ?
> Would this make the site less accessible to the search-
> engines ?
> Despite the frames, which it has always had, five years
> ago 65% of hits were via the search-engines -- although
> it had never been promoted to them.
> Now however, perhaps as result of the site's content
> remaining unchanged for so long, not only has the number
> of visitors fallen off considerably, but the proportion
> coming through the search engines has fallen to 35% of
> the total.
> Your advice and comments would be much appreciated.
> Eric Johnston
> p.s. Of the search criteria, the one that has brought by
> far the most visitors to my site is the word "torture".
> NoteTab site: http://www.notetab.com/
> Fookes Software site: http://www.fookes.com/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> HiThe site always had two frames. The question
> just went to this site it is fine
> http://www.rainbowends.org/cadre.htm two frames
> just the way it should be??
> THANKYOU DAVE M
Does index.html show you three portait photos
of Burmese generals ?
And do the frames it brings up show you, in the
righthand one, a text in English?
If not, you are seeing my 7-year old site.
> > If you are not seeing on the Front Page theThanks.
> > photos of Burma's three top ruling generals,
> > you are not seeing the updated site,
> I don't -- so it definitely is your server that
> does not update.
> Is it possible that you don't FTP directly into
> your webspace but send updates somewhere that
> someone has to insert manually and that they
> take their time?
I'll get on to the company that is hosting my
When I first tried to update my site Sunday a
week ago, I was unable to do so: the FTP server
didn't recognise my login details. I checked
them and they were correct. It turned out the
company had lost my login!
After they gave me a new ID and password
everything went smoothly, at least as far as
concerns the uploading to the FTP server.
The log file showed everything was OK.
Moreover in the past week, since then, I have
added new files and modified others by
synchronising with the server. And the
synchronising process has indicated that all
the other files were on the server.
Maybe someone at the hosting company must
manually transfer the files from the FTP server
to the HTTP server? That is something I am
totally ignorant about.
I do remember that years ago when I uploaded
the odd file from France the changes were
visible within hours, but from Thailand it took
about a week for the changes to become visible.
But if no-one is seeing the new site, there
must be something drastically wrong.
- bensbach wrote:
> I do remember that years ago when I uploadedThis is not as it should be. When I upload I can see the changes right
> the odd file from France the changes were
> visible within hours, but from Thailand it took
> about a week for the changes to become visible.
away and so can the W3C validator. If it were not so, how could I ever
debug? In very rare cases my own browser cache jumps in and hides
changes, but that only happens with stylesheets or scripts, never with
the site itself.
- I have been in contact with my website hosting
company's technical support, but up to now the
mystery of where my uploaded files can be
remains unresolved, as the hosting company,
skymarket.co.uk cannot find them on its
servers. But my FTP client can see them.
I give below the exchange of messages.
Anyone any suggestions?
After the small problem with logging in to the
FTP server was resolved I successfully uploaded
my new files, on Tuesday 15th January. The log
file showed this was accomplished successfully.
Since then I have uploaded new and modified
files by synchronisation with the FTP server.
The synchronisation process has shown that the
previously uploaded files are present on the
However I am not seeing the new site in my
Which domain are you having issues with?
This is my only domain.
I have looked at that hosting and it was last
updated in 2003.
Can you confirm the FTP information you are
using. Host, user and pass please.
I have been using as my "FTP Neighbourhood":
www.rainbowends.org and my user i/d and
password are as given to me by you, as below.
I have logged into FTP using that information
and I see the same files as before, the ones
that haven't been updated since 2003.
The problem appears to be in your uploading
process somewhere, as your new files are not
My new files must be on your server somewhere,
Please see below.
I have connected using this time a different
FTP client, SmartFTP instead of that included
with HotMetal Pro v.6.
It sees all the new files and folders. When I
cut the Internet connection it sees them no
longer so it cannot be seeing something on my
computer. It must be on the web at
18.104.22.168. Is that right?
[22:40:54] SmartFTP v2.5.1008.27
[22:40:55] Resolving host name "www.rainbowends.org"
[22:40:57] Connecting to 22.214.171.124 Port: 21
[22:40:57] Connected to www.rainbowends.org.
[22:41:03] 220 ProFTPD 1.2.10 Server (Cougar FTP
[22:41:03] USER rainbowe
[22:41:05] 331 Password required for rainbowe.
[22:41:05] PASS (hidden)
[22:41:06] 230 User rainbowe logged in.
[22:41:07] 215 UNIX Type: L8
[22:41:07] Detected Server Type: UNIX
[22:41:10] REST STREAM
[22:41:10] 211 End
[22:41:12] 257 "/" is current directory.
[22:41:12] CWD www.rainbowends.org
[22:41:14] 250 CWD command successful
[22:41:17] 257 "/www.rainbowends.org" is current directory.
[22:41:17] TYPE A
[22:41:19] 200 Type set to A
[22:41:20] 227 Entering Passive Mode (212,84,161,99,226,215).
[22:41:20] Opening data connection to 126.96.36.199 Port: 58071
[22:41:20] LIST -aL
[22:41:22] 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for file list
[22:41:22] 1379 bytes transferred. (1,69 Ko/s) (796 ms)
[22:41:23] 226 Transfer complete.
[22:41:57] 200 NOOP command successful
[22:42:29] 200 NOOP command successful
[22:43:01] 200 NOOP command successful
[22:43:35] 200 NOOP command successful
[22:43:40] CWD /www.rainbowends.org/mmviii
[22:43:43] 250 CWD command successful
[22:43:46] 257 "/www.rainbowends.org/mmviii" is current directory.
[22:43:48] 227 Entering Passive Mode (212,84,161,99,227,88).
[22:43:48] Opening data connection to 188.8.131.52 Port: 58200
[22:43:48] LIST -aL
[22:43:55] 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for file list
[22:43:55] 1350 bytes transferred. (394 octets/s) (00:00:03)
[22:43:58] 226 Transfer complete.
[22:44:32] 200 NOOP command successful
[22:44:46] Une connexion établie a été abandonnée par un logiciel de
votre ordinateur hôte.
[22:44:46] Server closed connection
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:
> bensbach wrote:
> > I do remember that years ago when I uploaded
> > the odd file from France the changes were
> > visible within hours, but from Thailand it took
> > about a week for the changes to become visible.
> This is not as it should be. When I upload I can see the changes
> away and so can the W3C validator. If it were not so, how could I
> debug? In very rare cases my own browser cache jumps in and hides
> changes, but that only happens with stylesheets or scripts, never
> the site itself.
- The website hosters have found MY mistake.
I had uploaded not only the files intended
for the website but also the folder they
are contained in. The name of that folder
is www.rainbowends.org so the mistake was
not obvious at first site.
My apologies for troubling you all.
--- In email@example.com, "bensbach" <ericbj-mmvii@...> wrote:
> I have been in contact with my website hosting
> company's technical support, but up to now the
> mystery of where my uploaded files can be
> remains unresolved, as the hosting company,
> skymarket.co.uk cannot find them on its
> servers. But my FTP client can see them.
> I give below the exchange of messages.
> Anyone any suggestions?
- bensbach wrote:
> Anyone any suggestions?Using FTP: Can you see the old files, those that are displayed through
HTTP, in the self-same directory. If so you uploadd to the right place.
Is your capitalization correct for all the new file names? And have you
made sure that none of them contains any accented French letters that
are not part of standard US 7-bit ASCII?
- bensbach wrote:
> My apologies for troubling you all.No problem, glad it's solved.
N.B: I recommend the Totalcommander for FTP (among very many other
things). It makes things like that very easy to spot.