Posted by Jim S on 04/24/07 12:09

On 24 Apr 2007 02:47:53 -0700, David Dorward wrote:

> On Apr 24, 9:47 am, Jim S <j...@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
>> Is it true that under XHTML frames are once again acceptable?
>
> XHTML 1.0 is HTML 4.01 except (a) with a few minor tweaks and (b)
> expressed in XML
>
> Like HTML 4.01, it includes frames. They cause just as many problems
> there as they do in HTML and should be avoided in most circumstances.
>
> XHTML 1.1 is XHTML 1.0 Strict with Ruby anotation. It has awful
> browser support. It doesn't have built in frames.
>
> XFrames is, IIRC, a generic way to do frames in XML. I haven't looked
> at it closely, but suspect it has dreadful browser support.
>
>> If so how doe I produce frames which a) have no borders
>
> Last time I checked, no browser supported the standard way to do this.
>
>> b) have a replacement for the 'target' function?
>
> The target attribute is still there in 1.0, with all of its problems.

Thanks David.
If you glanced at my site, you will see it is almost entirely pictures. It
works well enough unless you want to print a page.
I have tried to make it all validatable and it is, except for the
border/target problem.
I have even tried replacing the tables and the frames, but either I'm not
really up to it or the people trying to help have assumed too much knowledge
on my part.
I guess I shall just stick with the 'if it works, don't fix it' mantra.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

[Back to original message]