|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/20/07 02:56
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:07
GMT Tim Streater scribed:
>> > If people said "You should use xyz instead of frames, and here's
>> > why, and here's an example using xyz that functions identically to
>> > this example using frames, and here's why its better" then sceptics
>> > like me might pay more attention.
>>
>> But if people always said what you wanted them to say, you'd have no
>> excuse to opt out from better methods of engineering your page...
>>
>> Here's an example of a non-frames page with a stationary header and
>> footer:
>>
>> http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/whelan1.html
>>
>> The nav happens to be in the header, but it could be anywhere. This
>> page works in ie6, ie7, firefox, and opera - all the browsers I am
>> currently able to test. No, the markup isn't exactly a "piece of
>> cake", but neither is it so esoteric as to be improbably conformed.
>> The point is don't be so lazy and you may be surprised by what you
>> can do.
>
> Again, you don't say why it's better, you merely assert that it is.
Why? -Progress, advancement. Also, it's ultimately simpler. Take
Microsoft out of the equation and it's a lot simpler.
> What I have created works just fine. Changing it to another approach
> is way down my list of priorities.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who condemns frame
usage. Frames are fine much of the time and the reasons cited against
them often seem trivial to me. Nevertheless, with today's markup
advancements (-as flawed as they sometimes are) and additional server-
side options, it is usually easier to employ other methods for the older
and more cumbersome practices which frames require to accomplish the same
goals. The "fly in the ointment" is Internet Explorer, but there are
workarounds even for that available to those who endeavor to keep their
skills as current as they should.
--
Neredbojias
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|