«

dorayme wrote:

> .. People here are hell bent on frameicide.

I committed frameicide two weeks after I started writing my first web
site back in 1997. Such a mess! (Well, it *was* the very first version
of FrontPlague...)

I switched to a text editor at that time.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

In article <Xns9A82DB8B42245neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.com/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 16 Apr 2008, dorayme <> wrote:
>
> >> Hell, I actually think you were agreeing with me, just saying it
> >> nicer.
> >
> > Seriously, yes and no. I think it bad to completely stamp out all uses
> > of frames, we have a moral duty to preserve the species and have it
> > out in the world competing and living as best as it can. People here
> > are hell bent on frameicide.
> >
> > Even those that would have endangered species in zoos have some
> > heartfelt hopes of a return to the wild. The heartless regulars here
> > would not even countenance a zoo for poor frames. That is what
> > concerns me.
> >
> > Travis, I don't suppose you would be interested in joining my new
> > organization, Framepeace? Please send $US10. And anyone else - Boji? -
> > who wants to Save the Frame from extinction.
>
> Me - send money? Ha ha ha ha!! Yeah, right.
>
> Seriously, though, this is boring. I like it better when you are in
> virtual dingbat mode. It may not be logical, but somehow it's just more
> human. -Okay: "animal" then.

Oh you mean when I found an organization called Framepeace to save html
frames, this is not dingbat enough for you?

(Just btw, there is no animal in me, I am thing. "it" is the correct
pronoun to use unless it begins a sentence, in which case it is "It". I
know how puzzled you get over case. And you might insist, wrongly, that
I should have begun the last sentence with "It". Still bored? Still not
dingbatty enough for you? Tell me the level you want. I aim to please.)

--
dorayme

In article <480679e4$0$3358$>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> Overnight wrote:
>
> > I got an index page built with four frames : top, left, center and
> > bottom.
>
> The obligatory posting:
> http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>
> Frames were invented by Netscape about a hundred years ago; they used
> them for about six months, then dumped them. Klew?
>
> I hate scrolling half-a-page. Use server-side includes instead, and
> present one page.
>
> > THanks for help.
>
> You're very welcome.

I would suggest that the OP ignore this "advice".

Tim Streater wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Overnight wrote:
>>> I got an index page built with four frames : top, left, center and
>>> bottom.
>>
>> The obligatory posting:
>> http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>>
>> Frames were invented by Netscape about a hundred years ago; they
>> used them for about six months, then dumped them. Klew?
>>
>> I hate scrolling half-a-page. Use server-side includes instead, and
>> present one page.
>>
>>> THanks for help.
>>
>> You're very welcome.
>
> I would suggest that the OP ignore this "advice".

Care to go into a detail or three? You think frames are a good idea?

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

In article <48079beb$0$7696$>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >> Overnight wrote:
> >>> I got an index page built with four frames : top, left, center and
> >>> bottom.
> >>
> >> The obligatory posting:
> >> http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
> >>
> >> Frames were invented by Netscape about a hundred years ago; they
> >> used them for about six months, then dumped them. Klew?
> >>
> >> I hate scrolling half-a-page. Use server-side includes instead, and
> >> present one page.
> >>
> >>> THanks for help.
> >>
> >> You're very welcome.
> >
> > I would suggest that the OP ignore this "advice".
>
> Care to go into a detail or three? You think frames are a good idea?

Horses for courses, Beau. If it works, use it. I got two or three apps
that use frames and I ain't about to rewrite them just because you got
ants in your pants.

Several people on this NG need to be a bit (no, a *lot*) less precious
about a number of topics and stop pretending that they are the font of
all wisdom before which we should all bow and then sup the waters.

Give the guy straightforward advice or keep your trap shut.

Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <48079beb$0$7696$>,
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> Overnight wrote:

<snip>

>>>>> THanks for help.
>>>> You're very welcome.
>>> I would suggest that the OP ignore this "advice".
>> Care to go into a detail or three? You think frames are a good idea?
>
> Horses for courses, Beau. If it works, use it. I got two or three apps
> that use frames and I ain't about to rewrite them just because you got
> ants in your pants.

Legacy is one think, but please do not advocate promoting a long
obsolete methodology that was fraught with problems, and not replace
with far better solutions. Lumberjack abandoned the ax when the chainsaw
came around. One only has to do a quick search of this group to see the
the problems frame|iframe cause. Certainly do not perpetuate the pain,
no new frame sites...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Tim Streater wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Tim Streater wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> Overnight wrote:
>>>>> I got an index page built with four frames : top, left, center and
>>>>> bottom.
>>>>
>>>> The obligatory posting:
>>>> http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>>>
>>> I would suggest that the OP ignore this "advice".
>>
>> Care to go into a detail or three? You think frames are a good idea?
>
> Horses for courses, Beau. If it works, use it. I got two or three apps
> that use frames and I ain't about to rewrite them just because you
> got ants in your pants.

Then it seems that you know how to properly construct a frames site,
unlike Overnight. (who hasn't been back yet)

> Several people on this NG need to be a bit (no, a *lot*) less
> precious about a number of topics and stop pretending that they are
> the font of all wisdom before which we should all bow and then sup
> the waters.

Precious? <g> You must be referencing the folks who suggest doing
things the good way instead of the bad way. <shrug>

> Give the guy straightforward advice or keep your trap shut.

Everyone else seems to think the advice was straightforward.

I didn't ask you to rewrite your sites.

--
-bts
-trap is shut; keyboard is active; no ants in pants