|
|
Posted by still me on 10/19/07 15:46
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:47:49 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Here's an example of a non-frames page with a stationary header and
>>> footer:
>>>
>>> http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/whelan1.html
>>
>> Again, you don't say why it's better, you merely assert that it is.
>
>1. There is only one page to deal with, not three or four (frameset,
>heading page, nav page, footer page, and of course, content page).
That's not exactly a big issue. My header, footer, and navigation
almost always end up in separate, includable files (exact type
dependant on application).
>2. While looking at any of the sub-pages (in this case images), a
>visitor can *bookmark* the sub-page, unlike in frames where only the
>frameset page can be bookmarked.
Actually a shortcoming of browsers more than of frames, but true. If
you need bookmarking, they you don't want frames.
>3. Assuming pages of text rather than images, Google will index the
>content on the sub-page, and when a visitor goes there (direct link sans
>frameset), there is *no* header, footer, and more importantly, no
>navigation.
A shortcoming of Google, although a practical problem. However, you
shouldn't make the assumption that every page needs to be indexed by
google.
>That should do it, eh?
For typical uses, yes. Frames can still have practical application.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|