Posted by jake on 08/28/05 13:21

In message <4uZPe.40490$EX.15429@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> writes
>jake wrote:
>
>> ... for a well-written frames-based site.
>
>Ah. Important words. "well-written."

*Very* important words, indeed ;-)

> Very uncommon.

Sadly, true.

>The last dozens of frame sites I looked at would not qualify.

Agreed. (You just can't get the staff these days.)

But then again, pick a dozen sites at random and see how many of them
have no doctypes, HTML that won't validate, have accessibility problems
...........
>
>Yes, jake, we know you adore frames. You stand in the minority in that.

Well, I don't use them, myself (if you exclude I-frames) -- but
certainly I have used them in 'the old days' for functionality that
frames are ideal for.

'Adore'? Too strong a word, surely ;-)

They have their uses -- it's just a pity there's so much disinformation
being published on NGs like this one ............

regards.

>

--
Jake
(jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)

[Back to original message]