Benefits / Problems using IFRAME

Discussion in 'HTML' started by rfr, Apr 5, 2006.

  1. rfr

    rfr Guest

    I have been using FrontPage 2003 Module Insert Page moderately successfully
    for things
    like header and footers for years.

    But, in certain circumstances, the FP insert seems to include the WHOLE PAGE
    again at the point where a simple module is inteded to be inserted. This
    happens with certain pages more than others and does NOT happen all the
    time. The non-consistent behavior \makes it nearly impossible to track down
    the probem or to be sure the work-around that one implements does work.

    I have used IFRAME in certain cases where the code is on another server.
    This
    seems to work well. There are certain differences;
    1. IFRAME WILL pay attention to any header CSS or JS code, where FP INCLUDE
    doesnt
    2. IFRAME seems to be a bit more picky about definition of width and length
    than FP INCLUDE
    3. IFRAME has NEVER doubled up on me.
    4. Page counters via CGI do not get incremented on IFRAME documents as
    reliably as when FP INCLUDE is used. I dont know why.

    Have any of you decided to switch away from FP INCLUDE PAGE and start to use
    IFRAME instead?

    Have any of you tried to switch to using IFRAME for includes but found
    reasons shy this is not a good idea?
    rfr, Apr 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rfr

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "rfr" <> declaimed:

    > Have any of you decided to switch away from FP INCLUDE PAGE and start
    > to use IFRAME instead?
    >
    > Have any of you tried to switch to using IFRAME for includes but found
    > reasons shy this is not a good idea?


    The optimal way is to use server-side includes. Anything else usually
    'includes' problems of one kind or another.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity can have limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rfr

    rfr Guest

    If one does their web site authoring and development on their PC, as I do,
    and developes documents on a stage-by-stage, visualizing basis, then using
    server-side includes is not an option. Because it is not possible to
    visualize the impact of server-side includes on documents created on ones PC
    ( unless one wants to run a full server on his PC).

    Also, server-side includes change the way one names files from .htm or .html
    to .shtml extensions, so that the server knows which documents to parse,
    looking for includes.

    Also, it is not possible for client-side mouse actions to influence which
    modules are inserted when one uses server-side includes. However, with
    IFRAMES it is possible with JavaScript to give the client options on what is
    displayed in the IFRAME with a simple mouse-click.

    What I was seeking with this IFRAME question is if other are finding
    problems with IFRAME or limitations or benefits ?

    I know one limitation that I have experienced and do not know why it happens
    is this: the page counters on documents included in an IFRAME do not seem to
    increment in a reliable way. Whereas, the same document do increment
    reliably outside the IFRAME use.

    I have heard that the search engines do not rank material inside IFRAMES as
    high as if it were mainstream document material.

    But, are there other limitations or benefits to IFRAME use?

    "Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
    message news:Xns979BE07881F83httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251...
    > To further the education of mankind, "rfr" <> declaimed:
    >
    >> Have any of you decided to switch away from FP INCLUDE PAGE and start
    >> to use IFRAME instead?
    >>
    >> Have any of you tried to switch to using IFRAME for includes but found
    >> reasons shy this is not a good idea?

    >
    > The optimal way is to use server-side includes. Anything else usually
    > 'includes' problems of one kind or another.
    >
    > --
    > Neredbojias
    > Infinity can have limits.
    rfr, Apr 5, 2006
    #3
  4. rfr

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "rfr" <> declaimed:

    > If one does their web site authoring and development on their PC, as I
    > do, and developes documents on a stage-by-stage, visualizing basis,
    > then using server-side includes is not an option. Because it is not
    > possible to visualize the impact of server-side includes on documents
    > created on ones PC ( unless one wants to run a full server on his PC).
    >
    > Also, server-side includes change the way one names files from .htm or
    > .html to .shtml extensions, so that the server knows which documents
    > to parse, looking for includes.
    >
    > Also, it is not possible for client-side mouse actions to influence
    > which modules are inserted when one uses server-side includes.
    > However, with IFRAMES it is possible with JavaScript to give the
    > client options on what is displayed in the IFRAME with a simple
    > mouse-click.


    The preceding 3 paragraphs were rationalization, meaningless, and
    erroneous, respectively.

    > What I was seeking with this IFRAME question is if other are finding
    > problems with IFRAME or limitations or benefits ?


    Possibly, but what you asked was if using iframes for includes was a good
    idea. My response suggested that it wasn't and there are better methods.

    > I know one limitation that I have experienced and do not know why it
    > happens is this: the page counters on documents included in an IFRAME
    > do not seem to increment in a reliable way. Whereas, the same document
    > do increment reliably outside the IFRAME use.
    >
    > I have heard that the search engines do not rank material inside
    > IFRAMES as high as if it were mainstream document material.
    >
    > But, are there other limitations or benefits to IFRAME use?


    Perhaps you should have posted "What are the limitations of using iframes
    for includes?" Of course Google would probably provide a larger selection
    of answers (assuming a proper query.)

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity can have limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 5, 2006
    #4
  5. On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rfr launched boldly forth atop a fullquote
    (usually a warning sign on usenet):

    > If one does their web site authoring and development on their PC, as


    Do I take it that by "PC" you mean Windows? (PC hardware can also run
    real operating systems, but I'll go along with the assumption that
    you're talking about some recent-ish flavour of Windows).

    > I do, and developes documents on a stage-by-stage, visualizing
    > basis, then using server-side includes is not an option. Because it
    > is not possible to visualize the impact of server-side includes on
    > documents created on ones PC ( unless one wants to run a full server
    > on his PC).


    Can't agree. Win32 Apache2 is quite easy to install, and can offer
    an environment which is close enough to one's production Apache
    (unix-ish) server for many practical purposes. I've got Apache2 on
    my Windows laptop, and I definitely recommend doing it, if you aim to
    do any serious web development on your peecee. Far more realistic
    than trying to browse files directly in the filesystem.

    You may want to configure it so that it can only be accessed from
    localhost (or whatever range of local addresses you care to trust).

    > Also, server-side includes change the way one names files from .htm
    > or .html to .shtml extensions,


    Not necessarily. Apache configuration is very flexible.

    > so that the server knows which documents to parse,
    > looking for includes.


    Admittedly, the Win32 file system doesn't make this as straightforward
    as the unix one, where the use of XBitHack with the file system's "x"
    permission bits can do the trick; but you can configure server parsing
    via a <Files...> bracket to target precisely the files which you wish
    to parse.

    Or you might be interested in
    http://search.cpan.org/~rkobes/Apache-WinBitHack-0.01/WinBitHack.pm
    although I haven't tried it myself. Obviously you'd need Perl
    installed in order to use this.

    There are other configuration possibilities. Up to you, really.
    Alan J. Flavell, Apr 5, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jezwold

    [O.T] SystemC benefits?

    Jezwold, Feb 7, 2005, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    612
    Jezwold
    Feb 8, 2005
  2. denis
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    330
    Tomás
    Mar 3, 2006
  3. serkan ulucan

    what is the benefits of using web services?

    serkan ulucan, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    106
    Andy Mortimer [MS]
    Oct 6, 2003
  4. Daedalous
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    678
    Daedalous
    Jan 16, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    116
Loading...

Share This Page