Posted by dorayme on 05/22/06 10:53

In article <1278801.gAGPt4HCu2@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

> >> http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
> >>
> >> Giving you any advice on any particulars (going along with your questions,
> >> that is) will only encourage bad habits and cripple you in the future.
> >
> > Sounds a bit dramatic. Have you no respect for preserving a
> > species? (I know... in this church... it's the html/css soul of
> > folk that need saving...)
>
>
> I have fallen into the infamous '3-frame trap' when I built 2-3 of my
> earliest Web sites. Bad in all respects, SEO included. Too hard to change
> because of the amount of work which is involved. I utter owing to personal
> pains.

Yes, fair enough... my experience was a bit different: I had one
fair sized commercial site in frames, just 2 frames, left for nav
and right for content. It developed into quite a palava with a
whole folder of framesets to cope. Eventually, I completely
rewrote it without frames [in spite of Mark Parnell fierce
protestations.. :-)]. It was an opportunity for redesigning the
whole thing but I can't honestly say that I work any less hard
trying to update it these days... But yes, there are other
advantages and I am glad to be rid of them. But they are quite
fun! I made a site once to see if I could crash my machine... I
made idiotic sites that had to be in frames to be that idiotic. I
have fond memories...

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]