Posted by Tim Streater on 10/19/07 13:06

In article
<doraymeRidThis-1337FE.20113519102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <wN_Ri.1745$CN4.1482@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tim Streater" <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tim.streater-C2CCC3.10070419102007@news.individual.net...
> > > In article <yc_Ri.1733$CN4.1478@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > > "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Tim Streater" <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:timstreater-650DBE.08521219102007@individual.net...
> > >> > In article <IMudnbZMmfQWyoXanZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@midco.net>,
> > >> > Sean Fritz <administrator@vaxius.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> Frames are dead.
> > >> >
> > >> > This, on the other hand, is rubbish.
> > >>
> > >> Care to cite any modern (that is, this century) source that advocates the
> > >> use of frames? And I mean a proper source, not some web dreziners blog.
> > >
> > > It's the blanket statement that is rubbish. Frames (and iframes) are
> > > working just fine for my application (for a closed community of
> > > engineers).
> >
> > How many engineers? 20? Out of say 2,000,000,000 internet users?
>
> well, I don't think, to be fair, Tim is taking some position that
> these facts are all that relevant to. Yeah I know... but frames,
> when done well (a rare thing) are not an incompetent thing to
> implement, especially with a restricted audience or for CD or
> other distributed media.
>
> There is no point reviewing all the evils of frames every time
> the poor things rear their heads. They have one huge advantage in
> that they perfectly implement the no-scrolling navigation menu.
> One of the silliest things ever in the history of mankind is how
> we have all gotten so used to useful navigation doing the
> disappearing act like the bloody station leaving the station
> along with the train! O, we say, that is just standard practice.
> Live with it. The alternatives with position: fixed and other
> things made Spartanicus (god)'s browser jerky...
>
> I will stop now. Tim, it irritates me too to keep seeing the word
> "frames" in the same sentence as "evil" or "dead". I prefer
> sunnier associations. I kinda like:

Well, I agree. What I observe is that every time someone (I assume to be
a newbie, but perhaps not) comes here in search of help with frames, the
general reaction is to say "Frames dead" or "Frames evil" etc etc.

I have described here before that I use iframes in a particular way -
the application would simply not scale to the amount of data in our
database without. I use frames to implement a set of tabs that the user
can click to change the content of a frame occupying most of the screen
(below the bar of tabs, other headers, etc), because there is too much
into to put it all on one screen.

I got grudging acknowledgement on a previous occasion that my use of
iframes was appropriate. Perhaps there is a better way to implement this
- but I won't be changing it any time soon, even if there is.

If people said "You should use xyz instead of frames, and here's why,
and here's an example using xyz that functions identically to this
example using frames, and here's why its better" then sceptics like me
might pay more attention.

[Back to original message]