|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 04/05/06 22:55
To further the education of mankind, "rfr" <rfrohrer@iw.net> declaimed:
> If one does their web site authoring and development on their PC, as I
> do, and developes documents on a stage-by-stage, visualizing basis,
> then using server-side includes is not an option. Because it is not
> possible to visualize the impact of server-side includes on documents
> created on ones PC ( unless one wants to run a full server on his PC).
>
> Also, server-side includes change the way one names files from .htm or
> .html to .shtml extensions, so that the server knows which documents
> to parse, looking for includes.
>
> Also, it is not possible for client-side mouse actions to influence
> which modules are inserted when one uses server-side includes.
> However, with IFRAMES it is possible with JavaScript to give the
> client options on what is displayed in the IFRAME with a simple
> mouse-click.
The preceding 3 paragraphs were rationalization, meaningless, and
erroneous, respectively.
> What I was seeking with this IFRAME question is if other are finding
> problems with IFRAME or limitations or benefits ?
Possibly, but what you asked was if using iframes for includes was a good
idea. My response suggested that it wasn't and there are better methods.
> I know one limitation that I have experienced and do not know why it
> happens is this: the page counters on documents included in an IFRAME
> do not seem to increment in a reliable way. Whereas, the same document
> do increment reliably outside the IFRAME use.
>
> I have heard that the search engines do not rank material inside
> IFRAMES as high as if it were mainstream document material.
>
> But, are there other limitations or benefits to IFRAME use?
Perhaps you should have posted "What are the limitations of using iframes
for includes?" Of course Google would probably provide a larger selection
of answers (assuming a proper query.)
--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|