|
|
Posted by jake on 08/28/05 13:21
In message <4uZPe.40490$EX.15429@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> writes
>jake wrote:
>
>> ... for a well-written frames-based site.
>
>Ah. Important words. "well-written."
*Very* important words, indeed ;-)
> Very uncommon.
Sadly, true.
>The last dozens of frame sites I looked at would not qualify.
Agreed. (You just can't get the staff these days.)
But then again, pick a dozen sites at random and see how many of them
have no doctypes, HTML that won't validate, have accessibility problems
...........
>
>Yes, jake, we know you adore frames. You stand in the minority in that.
Well, I don't use them, myself (if you exclude I-frames) -- but
certainly I have used them in 'the old days' for functionality that
frames are ideal for.
'Adore'? Too strong a word, surely ;-)
They have their uses -- it's just a pity there's so much disinformation
being published on NGs like this one ............
regards.
>
--
Jake
(jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|