Come on guys- What do you think

[admad1]

Come on guys- What do you think of my post below is this a practicle way to utilise one copy of Actinc V6

Hi I have been toying with using Iframes to make maximum use of my Actinic V6 Licence. View here can anyone see any problems with this as I dont want to buy a new v6 lincene every time I create a new site.

The main store is hosted at www.trophyhut.co.uk

The idea of course is to use the one store but on 3 or 4 sites to make maximum use of x linking via use of the iframe.

Your opinons please.

Andy

[garyhay]

Can you explain a bit more

[Jan]

I have failed - this is a single Actinic site as far as I can see. If you spell our your (Suggested) infringement of the rules in a more obivous way I might understand.

Regards,

[admad1]

Jan Please refrain from that kind of accusation (suggested or otherwise). I assumed that most of us where familiar with the iframe function. This allows you to display another website or page within a frame scrolling or not from any other website.I.e I could display amazon.co.uk on a page on my website view here within an iframe but the url would display as my url in the browser url bar not amazons

I have a website trophyhut. I have another website which sells the same product I don’t need two stores so the plan is to display the products from the first site in an iframe on the second site to help with marketing and sales.

Are you getting this? My question should be I suppose , can you see any technical reasons for not doing this with regard to bandwidht accessing the page etc.

I am not concerned about Actinic licensing as the store is only hosted on one site but displayed in an iframe on my other site as well.

Hope this dosent sound to confusing.

[rmladden]

Originally posted by admad1
Come on guys- What do you think of my post below is this a practicle way to utilise one copy of Actinc V6

Hi I have been toying with using Iframes to make maximum use of my Actinic V6 Licence. View here can anyone see any problems with this as I dont want to buy a new v6 lincene every time I create a new site.


You have already stated that your intent was to avoid purchasing Actnic licenses for each site.

Technically I see no problem, though in this case I don't see what an iframe gets you more than a regular frame. I have used iframes to embed Excel worksheets and other non-web data.

Framing a second site does not make it part of the first. Amazon did not become yours by framing it. It is still a second site. If the first site has no Actinic functionality, your scheme could work because only the second site is using Actinic.

ACTINIC CATALOG AND ACTINIC BUSINESS SOFTWARE LICENCE AGREEMENT
You may not:
(B) use one licensed copy of Catalog on more than one computer at the same time to operate more than one site that is selling on the internet.

Be very careful. I would not want to be in court defending myself with your position. You did openly state you intention and ask for opinions.

[pinbrook]

You can use normal frames...i did this once!! You have to add your own navigation to stop people straying

As far as I know IFRAMES are not all browser friendly (I am happy to be proved wrong here)

One problem you may have is with the checkout.....who does the final receipt come from,

are all your substores in fact owned by one person

[rmladden]

I see a few problems with iframes:

1. I don't think they work with Netscape (if anyone still uses it).
2. It is a mini-window into the second site. It will not look well integrated.
3. If they click on anything inside the iframe, they are completely in the second site. A regular frame would keep it framed.

[Jan]

> Please refrain from that kind of accusation (suggested or otherwise).
Actually I thought that you made the suggestion not me, as far as I could see you only have a single site up there. Sorry to have upset you - I made the assumption that you were within the rules of the licenses - after all why would you post on here if you were not.

I was expecting to see a site with several 'shops' made from sections within a single website, maybe that is what you have.

Regards,

[admad1]

Thank you Pinbrook for your comments just the kind of input I was after, I was not aware of the problem with Netscape I will have to test this carefully.

rmladden
ACTINIC CATALOG AND ACTINIC BUSINESS SOFTWARE LICENCE AGREEMENT
You may not:
(B) use one licensed copy of Catalog on more than one computer at the same time to operate more than one site that is selling on the internet.

I think you read to much into this. What I suggest is merely the same as what is done by those using affiliate schemes displaying products from one site on another via links , in this case one big link displaying the whole product range in a frame/window.

What I suggest is within the terms of the agreement above the licensed copy is only on one computer and only installed on one site.

Defend my self in court, I don’t think I would be that bothered about such a trivial matter if Actinic believed it was in breach of there licence and informed me to that effect I'm not in a position finically to challenge it. There are bigger problems in life without adding petty squabbles. ( getting one’s spelling right for a start lol…)

Thanks for your input


Jan thank you , apology accepted.

[NormanRouxel]

Re IFRAME and Netscape. The IFRAME tag allows for alternative html to be displayed if the browser doesn't support IFRAME's. Basically you'd just put a "Click here to enter our Online Store" type link between the <IFRAME> and </IFRAME> tag. At least the customers would be able to shop.

However I saw some really wierd behaviour (IE6 on WinXP-Pro) when I used an IFRAME on a brochure page.
Everything worked OK but viewing the same page half a day later and then going to the Product pages showed corrupt Actinic pages (missing images, etc).
It looked like the Browser and Actinic couldn't agree on the base href.
Refreshing the page in the Browser wouldn't fix it.
The (wierd) fix I found was to set the browsers system's clock to tomorrow, refresh the page (now OK) and then set the clock back. So it looks like some caching bug in IE.

Norman

[admad1]

Thanks Norman. Just experimenting with this as an option I think long term it's not an option

Andy