|
|
Posted by Tim Streater on 10/19/07 09:30
In article <wN_Ri.1745$CN4.1482@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Tim Streater" <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:tim.streater-C2CCC3.10070419102007@news.individual.net...
> > In article <yc_Ri.1733$CN4.1478@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Streater" <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote in message
> >> news:timstreater-650DBE.08521219102007@individual.net...
> >> > In article <IMudnbZMmfQWyoXanZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@midco.net>,
> >> > Sean Fritz <administrator@vaxius.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Frames are dead.
> >> >
> >> > This, on the other hand, is rubbish.
> >>
> >> Care to cite any modern (that is, this century) source that advocates the
> >> use of frames? And I mean a proper source, not some web dreziners blog.
> >
> > It's the blanket statement that is rubbish. Frames (and iframes) are
> > working just fine for my application (for a closed community of
> > engineers).
>
> How many engineers? 20? Out of say 2,000,000,000 internet users?
50 to 100, I'd say.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|