|
|
Posted by William Gill on 10/19/07 15:00
rf 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:
<< snip >>
>> 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?
>
I think the point is the right tool for the job at hand. When designing
an app for the 20, what do the 2,000,000,000 have to do with it. I have
never used frames (even last century) for all the frequently cited
reasons, and because browser real estate is too precious to waste.
However, now I am now using them for a relational database edit
interface. The user community is even smaller(1) so I have complete
control over all aspects of browser choice, plug-in availability,
feature enabled/disabled, and anything else. Do I need to consider
2,000,000,000 internet users? With the exception of iframes, I can't
see any better way to access, display, and edit data from several
related db tables, and developing a stand alone gui is a pain in the
a**. So, while I don't use frames for commercial sites, I would be
disappointed to see "evil" frames actually "die."
This reminds me of the "no Flash is good Flash" arguments I see here so
frequently. Come to think of it, it reminds me of a lot of "One true
religion" arguments. Call me an html heretic if you like.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|