That's how the vast majority of NON-SLR cameras deal with it. The second set of frame marks is for the minimum distance, and anything in between has to be guesstimated, but that's usually pretty easy.
For some SLRs that's true, but most don't show 100% of what the image will be. For most it's somewhere in the mid to upper 90%, but I've seen some in the 80's. At least it's centered on the image.
Actually I don't see that as a drawback. I see it as an insurance policy -- you get a little more than what you thought, and can always crop a little if necessary. It's usually better to have a little too much than not quite enough -- water & gasoline in the desert are other examples that come to mind.
My Zeiss Ikoflex has close-up attachments called "Ikoprox" that both decrease minimum focus distance (I assume just via diopter), and purport to correct for any parallax. I haven't tested mine extensively, but the one photo I have printed from a negative shot through the Ikoprox came out great and I don't believe I had to do any different thinking about framing than I would with an SLR.
Minox wasn't the only submini with parallax correction (but not all Minox models had it). While we'll never have a complete list, the Kodak Ektramax 110 had it, and Minolta had it with their MG-s & QT 16mm cameras. Unlike the Ektramax, the Minoltas did not have focusing lenses, but they had slip-on close-up lenses. Each close-up "filter" had two lenses -- one for the camera lens, and the other for the viewfinder -- which corrected for parallax.
The Minox 110s, designed and manufactured by Balda in 110 format, also has parallax compensation with its rangefinder. It might be my favorite camera just for its nice details, like the way the gap in the red style line changes with set aperture to indicate depth of field.