Posted by Tim Streater on 10/19/07 14:35

In article <Xns99CE48B5BC546nanopandaneredbojias@85.214.62.108>,
Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:06:38
> GMT Tim Streater scribed:
>
> >> 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:
> ...
> > 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.
>
> But if people always said what you wanted them to say, you'd have no excuse
> to opt out from better methods of engineering your page...
>
> Here's an example of a non-frames page with a stationary header and footer:
>
> http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/whelan1.html
>
> The nav happens to be in the header, but it could be anywhere. This page
> works in ie6, ie7, firefox, and opera - all the browsers I am currently
> able to test. No, the markup isn't exactly a "piece of cake", but neither
> is it so esoteric as to be improbably conformed. The point is don't be so
> lazy and you may be surprised by what you can do.

Again, you don't say why it's better, you merely assert that it is.

What I have created works just fine. Changing it to another approach is
way down my list of priorities.

[Back to original message]