I know this topic has pretty much passed, but the main
reason not to use frames is that XHTML 1.1 does NOT
suport them.
The W3C is trying to move us all to CSS positioning,
once it is supported enough by browsers to be
realistic. Frames go completely against this movement.
XHTML 1.0 does support frames, but you have to use a
special DTD.
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/
Nate (not Nat, although I wish I was sometimes =;>)
--- Nat Papovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Echoing the opinions of Patrick and Russel before
> me, I recommed NOT using
> frames if you can. That being said, I think that any
> even minorly-complex
> web _app_ is better with frames. If you're making an
> information site or a
> small application, or don't have as many options to
> click on one page as oh,
> say, Outlook, then frames are no good.
> People say that search engines can't index framed
> stuff, and bookmarks suck,
> and that Nutscrape doesn't do well. I agree, mostly.
> But for the sites where
> I've decided to use frames, letting search engines
> in is not allowed and not
> needed. I stick little "bookmark me" links inside
> frames to get around the
> bad bookmarking ability (but people tend not to
> bookmark framed applications
> anyway - who bookmarks a screen in Outlook?).
> Finally, Nutscrape works JUST
> FINE with frames, as long as you don't do iframes.
> Usually it requires a
> slightly different sizing in fra_mother, but once
> you figure out the pixel
> difference, it's not a big deal.
>
> Good luck,
> NAT
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick McElhaney
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:16 AM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: Tables versus Frames
> >
> >
> > I can tell you a dozen reasons (that have nothing
> to do with fusebox)
> > not to use frames. However, I just got finished
> creating an application
> > that used frames and fusebox. My philosophy is
> basically this: If it
> > will work just as well without frames, don't use
> frames.
> >
> > See also http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ShakerQuote
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Janine Jakim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:02 AM
> > > To: Fusebox
> > > Subject: OT: Tables versus Frames
> > >
> > >
> > > I hate to start a huge debate, but, I was
> recently talking to a seasoned
> > > fusebox developer. He told me it was best not
> to use frames
> > with fusebox-
> > > that it gets too convoluted and difficult with
> all the different
> > > fuseactions, etc. He said it would be much
> better to use tables
> > > to display
> > > the pages as if there are frames there. But I
> don't like the
> > > fact that with
> > > tables all the info is reloaded each time!
> (This discussion of
> > > course took
> > > place after I struggled to get my frames to work
> perfectly, but I'm not
> > > bitter...) So what do people think? Do the
> large sites become
> > > unmanageable
> > > using frames? Are tables the way to go?
> > > Humbly yours,
> > >
> > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
