Posted by Neredbojias on 01/28/07 22:29

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:50:02 GMT Ed Seedhouse scribed:

> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:26:13 -0500, Neredbojias <invalid@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
>>> that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames
>>> seemingly successfully.
>
>>Frames are no more "evil" than javascript or anything else, but they
>>should be used intelligently. Yeah, it's a nice little saying, but
>>that doesn't make it true.
>
> But there is as well as the "nice little statement" plenty of actual
> evidence that frames are a bad solution to a problem and that CSS with
> html can do it better. I, alas, have to maintain a frame based
> intranet and I curse them nearly every day.
>
> "Evil?" that's an over simplification. "Failed solution that doesn't
> work wheras other better solutions are available", that's a pretty
> much established fact.

Yes, I like your synposis better than the simplistic "evil", but frames
have good points, too, and some of the bad ones can be avoided with care.
Frames, via javascript, provide an excellent way to carry a persistent
(aka. "session") variable - better even than url-appending or server-side
timing.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

[Back to original message]