|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 09/08/05 19:29
With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
> > A static left nav can be done with css, too. You must know css
> > moderately well and be willing to experiment. At least 95% of what I've
> > learned about html and the like came via experimentation. Most of the
> > rest originated from here (esp. refinements of "experimental" results.)
> >
>
> Sure, but it means putting code on every page and again sure,
> there are includes and php and stuff one can go into. But I
> understood from the talk around here that frames were more
> reliable than fixed positions over browsers, young and old...
That's probably true, but of all things in css, position:fixed; is
surely one of the most unequivocal. Why IE's incomparable design agents
failed to implement it (even improperly), I know not.
> I have to stress that the total argument between frames and non
> frames is one thing. For example, I would be unlikely to make a
> commercial site with frames again. But it is a different thing
> to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.
> (I like updating and looking at the one site with frames on my
> books, it is nice to operate and think through using the nav
> system on the left and worrying mainly only about the simpler
> code of the right content).
Yeah. When I was younger, I felt the same way about my night-night.
> In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
> unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
> convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
> slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.
> To me, this is often a sign of a likely mistake in reasoning to
> do with a confusion about the scope of the issue at hand. Let me
> give you an example: I find I have nothing good to say about
> some political or religious positions because they stink *on the
> whole*. I am not inclined to see any strong or even mildly
> reasonable points *for* the positions concerned. I am most
> reluctant to concede the slightest thing, let alone encourage
> them in the slightest. But in this, I am probably more
> unreasonable than I should be!
I, er, understood your point until I read the explanation.
Nevertheless, I concur with the final conclusion.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|