|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 11/15/05 01:34
With neither quill nor qualm, David Dorward quothed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> >> Why would a page need a single frame? Isn't a page already a single
> >> frame?
> >
> > a) To maintain a constant address.
>
> Pointless.
Not always. Temporary content-changes can sometimes be couth under the
auspices of one address.
> > b) To allow persistent variables in javascript.
>
> Cookies. Query strings.
Yes, but it's less-cumbersome without them.
I am aware of your antipathy toward frames but do not share the opinion
that frames are "evil". While they can be abused more easily than non-
frame pages, I do not accept that as a reason to avoid them completely.
I have used a single-frame page myself in the past and even contemplated
doing so again recently.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|