Posted by dorayme on 09/09/05 13:38

> From: Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au>
>
> Previously in alt.html, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> said:
>
>> You do not see it as useful to you personally. This is different
>> to it not being useful to other people.
>
> Absolutely. I never said anything to the contrary.
>
>> It simply isn't good
>> enough for you that frames are a bad idea generally. Every
>> single thing about them needs to be damned eh?
>
> I have never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I was not meaning to imply that you said these things and
apologies if they seem to be so starkly put. But what can I do
when your words imply them to me? If I bring the implications
out, they look bad (which is the intention but not to be
mean...) and you will likely not want to own them. For example
when I said:"Well. Some of them are so obvious. But I fear that
whatever particular advantage is pointed out, you will have a
particular alternative to that". You replied "Probably. But
that's because there generally *is* a better alternative".

Here we are either at cross purposes or not. I assumed you would
not be repeating something we both agreed with, that on balance,
it is wise to approach a job without frames. I was talking
within the scope of individual features that were well
supported. When I state a plus, your reply is that it is not a
plus all considered. But I have already agreed to that. So what
am I supposed quite to think? I assume that you do what other
people (including myself, it is a very human thing to do) who
are down on some practice, to damn and downplay and not exactly
goodmouth any of its parts.

And when I said "On this last point I am sure you have a good
case. But it is a different case to the case about individual
advantages". You replied "How can it be? If you use frames, you
get all the effects of them, not just an individual feature".

I am not complaining about the truth of your last sentence. I
had thought I made it clear I agreed. Your "How can it be" shows
we are at a continual cross purpose or else you are loathe to
admit the slightest good of any feature of frames.

I suspected a bit of both but if I am wrong about this, let us
put it down to the difficulty of clear communication in these
newsgroup messages...

>
>> And you give a particularly unsatisfactory reason for refraining
>> from putting in a facility like fixedness (never mind frames for
>> this point). People besides yourself might very well find it
>> useful. Perhaps you know most people don't (I doubt it). But my
>> point here does not rest on this.
>
> If you disagree, that's fine. As I said, that's my personal view on it.
>
>> About the fixedness of the left nav being the only thing: I
>> thought I had mentioned it being easy for me to work on such a
>> site as I have to often update one significantly and don't have
>> to bother about the markup for the largely unchanging menu, that
>> it is easier text on the eye and my brain for the right hand
>> pages content
>
> Ah, so you did. I missed that one, sorry.
>
>> ... I know, not even this would be admitted by you
>> to be a pro
>
> Sure, code reusability is always a good thing. But...
>
>> because you have alternative techniques
>
> ...there are plenty of other methods that allow for code reuse that
> don't introduce the problems that frames do.
>
>> (superior
>> ones doubtless, ones that I might get one day). But then you
>> miss the fact that without knowing php one can do variously
>> modest useful things.
>
> Using includes in PHP is very straightforward, though obviously it
> requires a host that supports it (which are a dime a dozen these days).
>
> <?php include("includes/menu.html"); ?>

Yes, I am starting to use this a bit now and am planning to
convert a framed site using it. But I want to do it by thinking
beforehand and have an efficient plan so I don't make it an
overly costly effort when everything is working fine so far...

>
> And there are plenty of other alternatives too.
>
>> I should damn well make time
>> and save time in the future. Alright already, I will!
>
> There's no need to get nasty about it, and again you are putting words
> into my mouth.

Here you misunderstand a friendly remark. Wonder why? Not Jewish
or spent any time in New York or seen any Woody Allen films? It
is anything but nasty. It is really saying something like: "Hey,
you are reminding me to do the right thing now and save trouble
in the future. Ok, I will!" It is the opposite. It is deferring.
It is not sarcastic because I do have every intention of
carrying it out. Getting this cobber?

> But consider this:
>
> You have obviously already spent quite some time learning frames (let's
> face it, they're not the easiest thing to learn). So you don't mind
> learning new things. Why are you then so opposed to spending a little
> more time learning better alternatives?
>
Trust me, I am not at all opposed to it...

>> My view is that it is not as simple a matter as you make out.
>
> TBH I think we agree, we're just coming at it from different
> perspectives. I'm looking at it from a holistic view, whearas you are
> looking at each feature of frames individually, more as general
> features, rather than specifically related to frames. From that point of
> view, yes some of the facets of frames are definitely good, like the
> code reusability. Others are matters of opinion, such as the fixed
> navigation (or whatever). Others are definite negatives, such as the
> lack of unique URLs.
>

Exactly and indeed...

>
>> Yes, non frames is certainly on balance the way to go in case
>> anyone is tempted
>
> On this we agree, and this is my point. You can talk all you like about
> the good things about frames, and yes there are a few, but in the end
> frames have too many problems to make them a reasonable solution. And
> the positives can be achieved in other ways, which avoid the negatives.
>
>> (for most sites)
>
> Certainly any that are going to be released to the www. In a controlled
> environment such as an intranet, they can in some cases be useful.
>

I agree, we agree, what should we talk about next?


dorayme

[Back to original message]