Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Problems with frames...

Reply
Thread Tools

Problems with frames...

 
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
Els wrote:

> rf wrote:
>
>> jake wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've a question concerning frames. I want to use 3 frames:
>>>>
>>>>Why?

>>
>>> Why not?

>>
>> <checks jake's posting history>
>>
>> You are new here (except for a brief visit at the beginning of this month).

>
> Nope, he's been here a long time. I remember him from when I first
> asked for sitechecks. First post I can find through Google is April 4,
> 2004


Oops, older even.
How about this one to demonstrate he doesn't change his mind very
often:
http://message-id.net/%3CPuJVHEOAVny...demon.co.uk%3E

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Counting Crows - Hard Candy
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
Els wrote:

> Els wrote:
>
>> rf wrote:
>>
>>> jake wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I've a question concerning frames. I want to use 3 frames:
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> <checks jake's posting history>
>>>
>>> You are new here (except for a brief visit at the beginning of this month).

>>
>> Nope, he's been here a long time. I remember him from when I first
>> asked for sitechecks. First post I can find through Google is April 4,
>> 2004

>
> Oops, older even.
> How about this one to demonstrate he doesn't change his mind very
> often:


And I got the wrong link there. Should be:
http://message-id.net/%3C3775e770.14...ara.net%3E#1/1

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Counting Crows - Hard Candy
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
Els wrote:

> > <checks jake's posting history>
> >
> > You are new here (except for a brief visit at the beginning of this

month).
>
> Nope, he's been here a long time. I remember him from when I first
> asked for sitechecks. First post I can find through Google is April 4,
> 2004


Crikey, that long. I didn't notice.

And he is still sprouting all this bloody rubbish in support of frames?

Ah, typing that triggered a memory. Jake sprouts stuff in support of frames.
I ignore jake for a few weeks.

> You check the archive
> (on Google Groups, q=jake+gododdin+group:alt.html)


Nope. Now that you have corrected my mistake I actually don't care about our
friend jake. I'll just go back to ignore mode

Cheers
Richard.



 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dorward
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
jake wrote:

>>> How about using an inline frame?


>>All the problems of regular frames, but with worse browser support.


> Iframes work just fine in all modern browsers.


So? Support among slightly older browsers is worse, and they don't provide
any advantage over regular frames for the problem the OP is trying to
solve.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
In message <I5XPe.12148$(E-Mail Removed)>, rf
<?@?.?.invalid> writes
>Els wrote:
>
>> > <checks jake's posting history>
>> >
>> > You are new here (except for a brief visit at the beginning of this

>month).
>>
>> Nope, he's been here a long time. I remember him from when I first
>> asked for sitechecks. First post I can find through Google is April 4,
>> 2004

>
>Crikey, that long. I didn't notice.
>
> And he is still sprouting all this bloody rubbish in support of frames?


Support of frames? Nope; I just like to keep things honest

(There's nothing like being 'fair and balanced' -- as one of the cable
news channels describes itself -- in order to see both sides of an
argument)
>
>Ah, typing that triggered a memory. Jake sprouts stuff in support of frames.


Sorry, whatever you think about frames, they are just the best solution
to some specific requirements ....... )

>I ignore jake for a few weeks.


I never ignore your comments, though; too much fun reading some of the
nonsense.

Anyway, where have you been for the last few months?
>
>> You check the archive
>> (on Google Groups, q=jake+gododdin+group:alt.html)

>
>Nope. Now that you have corrected my mistake I actually don't care about our
>friend jake. I'll just go back to ignore mode


Hey. Don't be a stranger.
>
>Cheers
>Richard.
>

Regards
>
>


--
Jake
((E-Mail Removed) .... just a spam trap.)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Konrad Hammerer quothed:

> Hi!
>
> I've a question concerning frames. I want to use 3 frames:
>
> 1) Top
> and Down and within Down,
> 2) Left and
> 3) Right
>
>
> Top
> -------------
> |
> Left | Right
> |
> |
>
> Now my question:
> In the left frame I have my Navigation Table, in the right frame I
> have the content and in the top frame I have same kind of
> Header-Information about the content frame. When I click on a link in
> the left frame, I know how to change the right frame (with
> target="right"), but this is not enough! I need to change also the top
> frame, because the Header-Info must be updated and also the left
> frame, because the navigation table may have changed!
>
> How can I solve this problem? Is there a way without javascript?


You don't want frames, you want a page with a fixed-position left-
oriented nav menu. This can be done with css (although different
flavors are currently required for IE and other browsers.)

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2005
jake wrote:

> ... for a well-written frames-based site.


Ah. Important words. "well-written." Very uncommon. The last dozens
of frame sites I looked at would not qualify.

Yes, jake, we know you adore frames. You stand in the minority in that.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2005
In message <4uZPe.40490$(E-Mail Removed)>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>jake wrote:
>
>> ... for a well-written frames-based site.

>
>Ah. Important words. "well-written."


*Very* important words, indeed

> Very uncommon.


Sadly, true.

>The last dozens of frame sites I looked at would not qualify.


Agreed. (You just can't get the staff these days.)

But then again, pick a dozen sites at random and see how many of them
have no doctypes, HTML that won't validate, have accessibility problems
...........
>
>Yes, jake, we know you adore frames. You stand in the minority in that.


Well, I don't use them, myself (if you exclude I-frames) -- but
certainly I have used them in 'the old days' for functionality that
frames are ideal for.

'Adore'? Too strong a word, surely

They have their uses -- it's just a pity there's so much disinformation
being published on NGs like this one ............

regards.

>


--
Jake
((E-Mail Removed) .... just a spam trap.)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Konrad Hammerer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2005
> Exactly. My browser normally has a usable 450-500 pixels of height for
> the content, on this 800x600px monitor. It is really annoying when some
> web developer thinks I need to stare at his/her huge site logo all the
> time I am trying to read the content in about a 250 pixel height area.
>
> Get over it. Your logo is not nearly as important as your content.


See your point, but I find it much more annoying to search for the
navigation of the page and that is what I'm trying to do: HAVE THE
NAVIGATION IN VIEW ALL THE TIME. Not some logo stuff you mentioned...

>
> And I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the bookmarking disaster, or
> the search engine problems, of a framed site.
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2005
Konrad Hammerer wrote (with lack of attribution)

> > Exactly. My browser normally has a usable 450-500 pixels of height for
> > the content, on this 800x600px monitor. It is really annoying when some
> > web developer thinks I need to stare at his/her huge site logo all the
> > time I am trying to read the content in about a 250 pixel height area.
> >
> > Get over it. Your logo is not nearly as important as your content.

>
> See your point, but I find it much more annoying to search for the
> navigation of the page and that is what I'm trying to do: HAVE THE
> NAVIGATION IN VIEW ALL THE TIME. Not some logo stuff you mentioned...


The navigation is almost *always* at the very top, or it should be. Simply
press [home]. No searching required. The navigation appears instantly.

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saving the web, charset problems and symbols problems Sak Na rede Ruby 0 01-30-2009 05:05 AM
Problems, problems for newbie Shelly ASP .Net 1 09-03-2007 02:10 AM
Problems compiling simple C++ code (also problems with std::string) Susan Baker C++ 2 06-26-2005 01:43 AM
Re: sound problems and modem problems Harold Potter Computer Support 5 12-04-2003 04:12 PM



Advertisments