Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: Converting transitional to strict

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Converting transitional to strict

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2010
In article <htniv4$728$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Peter wrote:
> > In article<htm23b$oqt$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > says...
> >> Neil Gould wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are some presentational situations (beyond intranet) that are best
> >>> served by the use of frames, and there is no CSS equivalent that works with
> >>> all browsers, as frames do. There are facilities within the existing frames
> >>> model to address almost every concern that I've read from those who oppose
> >>> their usage, and I haven't seen one legitimate concern for dropping them
> >>> (no, I don't need to re-read the "frames are evil" drivel) so AFAICT, there
> >>> isn't a good reason NOT to use frames if they're the best solution to a
> >>> presentational requirement.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ugh! Again...
> >>
> >> Simple reason: because a much better implementation can be done via
> >> server-side scripting. Frames was a Netscape invention to accommodate
> >> document modular assembly at a time when server-side technologies were
> >> very limited. That is not the case now, and even Netscape abandoned
> >> using frames shortly after their introduction. Frames are a little like
> >> White-Out, indispensable in the age of typewriters but obsolete in the
> >> age of Word Processors.
> >>
> >>

> >
> > Iframes are used for most online credit card authentication pages, such
> > as Verified by Visa, would you believe.

>
>
> Hmmmm, most? Some yes, and I have seen some of those that do break the
> SSL encryption putting that lovely red broken lock in the URL inspiring
> great confidence in customers. Iframes are a credible risk of XSS, just
> because some sites employ bad practice does not validate it.
>
> > Not saying I'm recommending it,
> > but as bad as you make it out to be, it is used in one of the most
> > important parts of any online shopping transaction.
> >

>


Personally, I hate internet carholder authentication and avoid it like
the plague, where possible. However, here in the UK, the banks are now
forcing it upon new ecommerce sites that need to process credit cards by
charging extra for every transaction if you don't want to play along. So
there's going to be no avoiding it eventually.

All we can hope for is that they come up with something new. It was a
bad design concept from the very beginning.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Adrienne Boswell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2010
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Neil Gould"
<(E-Mail Removed)> writing in
news:hto7q6$23ev$(E-Mail Removed):

> dorayme wrote:
>> In article <htm2pn$la0$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "Neil Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are some presentational situations (beyond intranet) that
>>>>> are best served by the use of frames, and there is no CSS
>>>>> equivalent that works with all browsers, as frames do. There are
>>>>> facilities within the existing frames model to address almost
>>>>> every concern that I've read from those who oppose their usage,
>>>>> and I haven't seen one legitimate concern for dropping them (no, I
>>>>> don't need to re-read the "frames are evil" drivel) so AFAICT,
>>>>> there isn't a good reason NOT to use frames if they're the best
>>>>> solution to a presentational requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ugh! Again...
>>>>
>>>> Simple reason: because a much better implementation can be done via
>>>> server-side scripting.
>>>>
>>> I agree that server-side scripting provides a lot of capability, but
>>> that approach adds a lot of complexity to a relatively simple
>>> presentational task and isn't as universally functional as frames.
>>> Although your opinion is not uncommon among web programmers, you
>>> still haven't provided a good reason why frames should be abandoned.

>>
>> You mean Jonathan has not repeated the many documented downsides
>> of Frames which you have indicated a reluctance to hear again
>> earlier in this thread with your 'no, I don't need to re-read the
>> "frames are evil" drivel'.
>>

> Pretty much, and his omission was appreciated. To come up with a
> good reason to abandon the use of frames, one would have to get beyond
> that and other similar arguments.
>
>> The one big reason I moved a site made with frames to no-frames
>> one fine day (one fine month or two actually, it was a bit of
>> work!) is that I got thoroughly fed up of the URL not showing
>> specific enough address and the (related) bookmarking problem.
>> And you are now reading the words of a past fan of and present
>> nostalgic sentimental fool for frames.
>>

> The thing about good design is that it is based on an understanding of
> basic principles to employ the best-fit solution to a problem. In the
> early days of aviation, people tried copying things that worked
> without an understanding of why they worked or how to make the
> underlying principles serve their needs in a new design. The poor
> chaps that early-on tried only one wing crashed, but those Wright
> brothers' airplane with two wings actually got off the ground. So if
> two wings worked so well, three or ten wings must be a better approach
> to achieving flight, right? After enough people killed themselves with
> such contraptions, and the Wright brothers got patents for the
> fundamental principles that allowed their aircraft to work, a few of
> the brighter folks decided to study those principles and apply them
> to new designs. Eventually, the one-wing approach was "no longer
> deprecated".
>
> Frames are not the best solution for every page, but there are
> circumstances where they are the best solution. For example, in cases
> where the URL needn't show (or shouldn't show) specific addresses for
> sub-pages, and the designer wants a fluid, easily implemented
> presentation that works across the majority of browsers without the
> whole screen being redrawn, causing the context to flash and requiring
> the viewer to confirm that they are where they thought they were by
> re-scanning the whole screen. Try achieving that with CSS (a process
> I'm in the middle of as I write this, btw, and it ain't pretty).
>


I use frames at work a lot of the time because they are the best thing
for what I want to do. A form in one frame, and information on the
other that is used to fill out the form. Of course, I am the only one
who uses it, so for me, it's not a big deal. I just found it more
convenient -- for me.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
In article <hto7q6$23ev$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Neil Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <htm2pn$la0$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > "Neil Gould" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> >>> Neil Gould wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There are some presentational situations (beyond intranet) that are
> >>>> best served by the use of frames, and there is no CSS equivalent
> >>>> that works with all browsers, as frames do. There are facilities
> >>>> within the existing frames model to address almost every concern
> >>>> that I've read from those who oppose their usage, and I haven't
> >>>> seen one legitimate concern for dropping them (no, I don't need to
> >>>> re-read the "frames are evil" drivel) so AFAICT, there isn't a good
> >>>> reason NOT to use frames if they're the best solution to a
> >>>> presentational requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ugh! Again...
> >>>
> >>> Simple reason: because a much better implementation can be done via
> >>> server-side scripting.
> >>>
> >> I agree that server-side scripting provides a lot of capability, but
> >> that approach adds a lot of complexity to a relatively simple
> >> presentational task and isn't as universally functional as frames.
> >> Although your opinion is not uncommon among web programmers, you
> >> still haven't provided a good reason why frames should be abandoned.

> >
> > You mean Jonathan has not repeated the many documented downsides
> > of Frames which you have indicated a reluctance to hear again
> > earlier in this thread with your 'no, I don't need to re-read the
> > "frames are evil" drivel'.
> >

> Pretty much, and his omission was appreciated. To come up with a good
> reason to abandon the use of frames, one would have to get beyond that and
> other similar arguments.
>


All the best arguments against frames are exhausted in the set
that you suppose inadequate. What is your reason to be obviously
working hard to remove frames from some site you are working on
as you mention below? Are there some new arguments? I agree with
you that there might be some cases where it is perfectly adequate
and convenient to use document frames.

> > The one big reason I moved a site made with frames to no-frames
> > one fine day (one fine month or two actually, it was a bit of
> > work!) is that I got thoroughly fed up of the URL not showing
> > specific enough address and the (related) bookmarking problem.
> > And you are now reading the words of a past fan of and present
> > nostalgic sentimental fool for frames.
> >

> The thing about good design is that it is based on an understanding of basic
> principles ...
> ... The poor chaps that early-on tried only
> one wing crashed, ...


I still don't understand why a left wing on a Boeing 747 is not
sufficient to fly the plane, I think it a scandal that the public
is not told that they are doomed if the right falls off. The
airlines try to distract travellers by emphasising how the plane
can fly with just one engine and can glide. Cunning! I always
take a spare wing in case.

>
> Frames are not the best solution for every page, but there are circumstances
> where they are the best solution. For example, in cases where the URL
> needn't show (or shouldn't show) specific addresses for sub-pages, and the
> designer wants a fluid, easily implemented presentation that works across
> the majority of browsers without the whole screen being redrawn, causing the
> context to flash and requiring the viewer to confirm that they are where
> they thought they were by re-scanning the whole screen. Try achieving that
> with CSS (a process I'm in the middle of as I write this, btw, and it ain't
> pretty).


With caching and the speed of modern computers and
communications, I am not aware of any big problem with 'flashing'
where frame are dispensed with. I have many php includes in some
of my sites and the included material loads pretty much like it
would if it had been hand tailored for the page alone. The page
is assembled on the server out of sight of prying eyes, it is no
doubt an ugly business back there. But what comes out is treat
enough.

I once went back to see what went on on the server. The language
used was *disgusting*, the sheer pandemonium unsettling and the
first tries a joke. A bit like going into the kitchen of some of
our best restaurants (don't do it!). But my, what lovely frauds
would come out the door to fool the punters. "What a nice
webpage!" they would gasp. "How pretty *and* informative", "And
look at that navigation and url, no way of getting lost!"

As for fluid, I am sure this concept does not particularly belong
to frames technology.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
dorayme wrote:
> In article <hto7q6$23ev$(E-Mail Removed)>,


>>
>> Frames are not the best solution for every page, but there are
>> circumstances where they are the best solution.



....... speaking of frames......... that reminds me that pictures can be
framed ... and oh .. yeah ... some of us like to take pictures that go into
frames... and.. um... some are even really good at creating images to put
into frames....... yeah!

Hey... speaking of creating images.. did you notice the thread about the
Tennis Match game? <hint hint>

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
In article <htq1qu$l9o$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <hto7q6$23ev$(E-Mail Removed)>,

>
> >>
> >> Frames are not the best solution for every page, but there are
> >> circumstances where they are the best solution.

>

I don't think I said this. But I don't mind that much if I did
(as I did in in fact another possible world)

>
> ...... speaking of frames......... that reminds me that pictures can be
> framed ... and oh .. yeah ... some of us like to take pictures that go into
> frames... and.. um... some are even really good at creating images to put
> into frames....... yeah!
>
> Hey... speaking of creating images.. did you notice the thread about the
> Tennis Match game? <hint hint>


Yes, I did notice this. I am afraid I am not much one for games
these days, only play occasional chess and sudoku. Plus, I would
be unlikely to be so boldly off-topic in this usenet group. You
are braver than me.

btw, I mention this following because I know you like a chat: I'm
not bad at draughts but almost never play it! I was helped by a
madmen who had been locked up in a ward for the criminally insane
for the greater part of a decade and he told me he had met some
Australian draughts champion in there and that helped him
strengthen his game.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
dorayme wrote:
>
> All the best arguments against frames are exhausted in the set
> that you suppose inadequate.
>

My issue with those arguments is that they are mostly a matter of
preference, rather than of technical inadequacy of the frames element, yet
they are presented as such. The same approach could be taken for any HTML
element, and even more so for CSS.

> What is your reason to be obviously
> working hard to remove frames from some site you are working on
> as you mention below?
>

Largely because the old code os cumbersome, and can be managed more
efficiently with server-side code and CSS (e.g. the cache and faster
computers that you mentioned), so while I was at it, I restrict the use of
frames to those pages that can't be presented adequately without them.

> Are there some new arguments?
>

For or against? I can't think of a good *technical* reason not to use them,
if the W3C recommendations are followed. OTOH, not many presentations
actually require them

>>> The one big reason I moved a site made with frames to no-frames
>>> one fine day (one fine month or two actually, it was a bit of
>>> work!) is that I got thoroughly fed up of the URL not showing
>>> specific enough address and the (related) bookmarking problem.
>>> And you are now reading the words of a past fan of and present
>>> nostalgic sentimental fool for frames.
>>>

>> The thing about good design is that it is based on an understanding
>> of basic principles ...
>> ... The poor chaps that early-on tried only
>> one wing crashed, ...

>
> I still don't understand why a left wing on a Boeing 747 is not
> sufficient to fly the plane, I think it a scandal that the public
> is not told that they are doomed if the right falls off.
>

Actually, it may be, but you wouldn't want to be a passenger on that flight.
=8-0

> With caching and the speed of modern computers and
> communications, I am not aware of any big problem with 'flashing'
> where frame are dispensed with. I have many php includes in some
> of my sites and the included material loads pretty much like it
> would if it had been hand tailored for the page alone. The page
> is assembled on the server out of sight of prying eyes, it is no
> doubt an ugly business back there. But what comes out is treat
> enough.
>

I mostly agree, but this is largely a matter of what people are running,
rather than a controlled development environment. I try to stay away from
folks' "back end", since they are so varied and unpredictable.

--
best regards,

Neil


 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> Oh really? Aren't you conflating "Frames" and "iFrames"?
>>>
>>> Conflating? Frames - iFrames same mechanism, just MS's inline take
>>> on a bad idea...
>>>

>> When I read the W3C specifications for the two, their "mechanisms"
>> do not appear to be even remotely similar, beyond the use of the
>> term "Frame". Not surprisingly, they don't function the same way,
>> either.
>>
>> I get that you don't like them... but that doesn't explain why
>> they're functionally a bad idea or should be dropped.
>>

>
> Okay I will not get into the exhaustive list that ample discussion can
> be found in the NG and online. But here is a little demo page that
> debunks some of the "virtues" of iframes:
>

Jonathan, I have not been referring to iframes in my comments -- you
introduced those -- and they are not the same thing as html frames, even
though they may share some down-sides. In application, any in-line
structures are not likely to address the issues that would make html frames
useful.

--
best regards,

Neil


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
dorayme wrote:
> In article <htq1qu$l9o$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <hto7q6$23ev$(E-Mail Removed)>,

>>
>>>>
>>>> Frames are not the best solution for every page, but there are
>>>> circumstances where they are the best solution.

>>

> I don't think I said this. But I don't mind that much if I did
> (as I did in in fact another possible world)
>
>>
>> ...... speaking of frames......... that reminds me that pictures can
>> be framed ... and oh .. yeah ... some of us like to take pictures
>> that go into frames... and.. um... some are even really good at
>> creating images to put into frames....... yeah!
>>
>> Hey... speaking of creating images.. did you notice the thread about
>> the Tennis Match game? <hint hint>

>
> Yes, I did notice this. I am afraid I am not much one for games
> these days, only play occasional chess and sudoku. Plus, I would
> be unlikely to be so boldly off-topic in this usenet group. You
> are braver than me.


hahaha hey ... I've already been read the riot act in previous
discussions.. what more is there to fear by suggesting a bit of fun in a
place that is so serious? I had brought it up in previous discussions.
It's not so off topic to discuss image placement within code, and people do
go off topic here quite often, anyway.

> btw, I mention this following because I know you like a chat: I'm
> not bad at draughts but almost never play it! I was helped by a
> madmen who had been locked up in a ward for the criminally insane
> for the greater part of a decade and he told me he had met some
> Australian draughts champion in there and that helped him
> strengthen his game.


Surely it never hurts to be a little bit influenced by madmen who could show
us all how to lighten up and enjoy what we do from time to time? What
harm is there is having a little bit of fun now and then?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
Neil Gould wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:


>> Okay I will not get into the exhaustive list that ample discussion can
>> be found in the NG and online. But here is a little demo page that
>> debunks some of the "virtues" of iframes:
>>

> Jonathan, I have not been referring to iframes in my comments -- you
> introduced those -- and they are not the same thing as html frames, even
> though they may share some down-sides. In application, any in-line
> structures are not likely to address the issues that would make html frames
> useful.
>


Except the issues I list apply to 'frames' as well...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2010
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>
>>> Okay I will not get into the exhaustive list that ample discussion
>>> can be found in the NG and online. But here is a little demo page
>>> that debunks some of the "virtues" of iframes:
>>>

>> Jonathan, I have not been referring to iframes in my comments -- you
>> introduced those -- and they are not the same thing as html frames,
>> even though they may share some down-sides. In application, any
>> in-line structures are not likely to address the issues that would
>> make html frames useful.
>>

>
> Except the issues I list apply to 'frames' as well...
>

Not universally, and there are accommodations within the frames model for
most of the issues you've raised about iframes.

-- you don't have to know ahead of time what the size of the content will
be, unless your design demands it, then it isn't much of a puzzle, is it?

-- even with ie, the frame's background will be whatever you set it to be,
etc.

I don't understand why you insist that they are the same or should be
regarded equally.

--
best regards,

Neil



 
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
Re: Converting transitional to strict GTalbot HTML 0 05-20-2010 04:26 AM
Re: Converting transitional to strict dorayme HTML 1 05-18-2010 11:12 PM
Re: Converting transitional to strict Beauregard T. Shagnasty HTML 3 05-17-2010 05:39 PM
Re: Converting transitional to strict Neredbojias HTML 1 05-16-2010 07:32 PM
Re: Converting transitional to strict Adrienne Boswell HTML 1 05-16-2010 06:37 PM



Advertisments