frames and border

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Khorne, Sep 5, 2005.

  1. Khorne

    Khorne Guest

    Hi,

    I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    Explorer.
    Here is my HTML code:

    <FRAMESET rows="58,*" FRAMEBORDER=no FRAMESPACING=0 BORDER=0>
    <FRAME src="/images/music.html" NAME="music" SCROLLING="no" NORESIZE="yes">
    <FRAME src="home.php" NAME="main" SCROLLING="no" NORESIZE="yes">
    </FRAMESET>


    Under Firefox or other browser, the frame display correctly without space or
    border. But under IE there is always a tiny space between frame.

    Can somebody help me to fix this problem?

    Thanks for you help

    Guillaume
    Khorne, Sep 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Khorne" <>

    > Hi,
    >
    > I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    > Explorer.
    > Here is my HTML code:
    >
    > <FRAMESET rows="58,*" FRAMEBORDER=no FRAMESPACING=0 BORDER=0>
    > <FRAME src="/images/music.html" NAME="music" SCROLLING="no" NORESIZE="yes">
    > <FRAME src="home.php" NAME="main" SCROLLING="no" NORESIZE="yes">
    > </FRAMESET>
    >
    >
    > Under Firefox or other browser, the frame display correctly without space or
    > border. But under IE there is always a tiny space between frame.
    >
    > Can somebody help me to fix this problem?
    >
    > Thanks for you help
    >
    > Guillaume
    >
    >


    If I recall, I had a prob like this once (it gives probs in a few browsers,
    including the normally good Mozilla 1.3 for Macs on less than OS X)) and
    reverted to having a frame border as being the simplest solution on a site
    that had a coloured left nav frame and a differently coloured right frame.
    If you have no border, best to make the right frame white and keep stuff off
    the left edge (set margin or padding etc). There may be a way to control the
    colour of the border which would then enable you to make it seem to have no
    border if you choose the colour to be the same as one or other of your
    frames.

    To sum up: Have a border and match the design to make it seem unnoticeable.
    Or have a default border and be done. Or look further to see if you can
    reliably cross-browser control the actual border colour - I doubt it.

    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Khorne" <>

    > Hi,
    >
    > I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    > Explorer.
    > Here is my HTML code:
    >
    > <FRAMESET rows="58,*" FRAMEBORDER=no FRAMESPACING=0 BORDER=0>
    > <FRAME src="/images/music.html" NAME="music" SCROLLING="no" NORESIZE="yes">
    > <FRAME src="home.php" NAME="main" SCROLLING="no" NORESIZE="yes">
    > </FRAMESET>
    >
    >
    > Under Firefox or other browser, the frame display correctly without space or
    > border. But under IE there is always a tiny space between frame.
    >
    > Can somebody help me to fix this problem?
    >
    > Thanks for you help
    >
    > Guillaume


    Let me sum up again, better than in my last post...

    (your prob is the space, probably white, in no border frame
    setup)

    If you cannot be rid of the space: Have no border and match the
    design to make the strip of space unnoticeable. Or have a border
    and be done. Or look further to see if you can reliably
    cross-browser control the actual border colour and then design
    so it is not noticeable.

    > dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Khorne

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Khorne <> said:

    > I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    > Explorer.
    > Can somebody help me to fix this problem?


    Redesign the page without frames.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Sep 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Khorne

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Khorne wrote:

    > Under Firefox or other browser, the frame display correctly without space or
    > border. But under IE there is always a tiny space between frame.


    I don't see what people have against frame borders. Big, chunky, resizable
    frame borders are the most useful borders for most users. They allow
    users to resize the frames if part of the content cannot be accessed for
    some reason. And they offer a visual explanation of why part of the page
    doesn't scroll when they use the scroll bar.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Sep 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Mark Parnell <>

    > Previously in alt.html, Khorne <> said:
    >
    >> I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    >> Explorer.
    >> Can somebody help me to fix this problem?

    >
    > Redesign the page without frames.
    >


    .... and lose a possibly worthwhile facility. I think this latter
    is fair enough comment given that we don't really know what the
    OP is doing in detail... I know you hold fundamentalist views on
    this issue... And that you would likely not so describe it...

    It is a scandal that browsers have not well supported some of
    the features (like i-frames) that would at least make me hurry
    to change my one remaining framed site. The feature of keeping
    the navigation visible at all times. I no longer design with
    frames but am constantly struck by the almost totally absurd
    situation of navs scrolling out of site (yes, mine scroll away
    like all the rest of us sheep). I am sure most folk here would
    not regard it as at all absurd. I think this is because of
    familiarity. Almost anything can cease to seem absurd...


    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Khorne

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:
    > From: Mark Parnell <>
    >
    >> Redesign the page without frames.
    >>

    > ... and lose a possibly worthwhile facility.


    The lack of unique URLs? The myriads of scrollbars?

    > I think this latter
    > is fair enough comment given that we don't really know what the
    > OP is doing in detail...


    No we don't, so we have to assume that it is a standard, public, web
    site - in which case frames are not appropriate.

    > I know you hold fundamentalist views on
    > this issue... And that you would likely not so describe it...


    It wouldn't have been my choice of words, but I'm not going to disagree.
    :)

    > It is a scandal that browsers have not well supported some of
    > the features (like i-frames)


    Don't even start on iframes - they're even worse than normal frames.

    > that would at least make me hurry
    > to change my one remaining framed site. The feature of keeping
    > the navigation visible at all times.


    position: fixed;
    There are workarounds for IE.

    > I no longer design with
    > frames but am constantly struck by the almost totally absurd
    > situation of navs scrolling out of site


    Why is that so absurd? That's how most sites work. If your pages are too
    long, add the menu at the bottom of the page as well.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Sep 6, 2005
    #7
  8. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Toby Inkster <>

    > Khorne wrote:
    >
    >> Under Firefox or other browser, the frame display correctly without space or
    >> border. But under IE there is always a tiny space between frame.

    >
    > I don't see what people have against frame borders. Big, chunky, resizable
    > frame borders are the most useful borders for most users. They allow
    > users to resize the frames if part of the content cannot be accessed for
    > some reason. And they offer a visual explanation of why part of the page
    > doesn't scroll when they use the scroll bar.
    >



    Well, I am not sure if people *do* have a problem in general
    with frame borders? I recall a particular case quite some time
    back where I did not want one on one frameset, one reason being
    it looked better without it. And perhaps the OP has a good
    reason?

    Anyway, you are quite right about the advantages of borders in
    general. And they mostly look nice enough...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 6, 2005
    #8
  9. Khorne

    tm Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:
    > dorayme said:


    > > The feature of keeping
    > > the navigation visible at all times.

    >
    > position: fixed;
    > There are workarounds for IE.


    Link?
    tm, Sep 6, 2005
    #9
  10. Khorne

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

    > > From: Mark Parnell <>

    >
    > > Previously in alt.html, Khorne <> said:
    > >
    > >> I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    > >> Explorer.
    > >> Can somebody help me to fix this problem?

    > >
    > > Redesign the page without frames.
    > >

    >
    > ... and lose a possibly worthwhile facility. I think this latter
    > is fair enough comment given that we don't really know what the
    > OP is doing in detail... I know you hold fundamentalist views on
    > this issue... And that you would likely not so describe it...
    >
    > It is a scandal that browsers have not well supported some of
    > the features (like i-frames) that would at least make me hurry
    > to change my one remaining framed site. The feature of keeping
    > the navigation visible at all times. I no longer design with
    > frames but am constantly struck by the almost totally absurd
    > situation of navs scrolling out of site (yes, mine scroll away
    > like all the rest of us sheep).


    It isn't that hard to "seat" a nav section at the top of a page, and re:
    IE, you can even do it without javascript if you have some server-side
    support.

    > I am sure most folk here would
    > not regard it as at all absurd. I think this is because of
    > familiarity. Almost anything can cease to seem absurd...


    -Especially following some diligent drinking.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Sep 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Mark Parnell <>
    >
    > Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:
    >> From: Mark Parnell <>
    >>
    >>> Redesign the page without frames.
    >>>

    >> ... and lose a possibly worthwhile facility.

    >
    > The lack of unique URLs? The myriads of scrollbars?
    >

    A misunderstanding perhaps? Or a desire to see the worst? Your
    remark is not appropriate to my comment (in spite of correctly
    identifying the cons) but this may be my fault too. I was
    referring to pros rather than the cons. And your remark about
    the myriad of scrollbars is unfair. There need not be a myriad
    of them at all. This is the unfairness of inappropriate
    exaggeration. I forget whether the scholastics had a fancy Latin
    name for this reasoning mistake? Let us call it something with
    an Australian flavour - what about a "Bruce"? You have committed
    the Fallacy of Bruce.


    >> I think this latter
    >> is fair enough comment given that we don't really know what the
    >> OP is doing in detail...

    >
    > No we don't, so we have to assume that it is a standard, public, web
    > site - in which case frames are not appropriate.
    >
    >> I know you hold fundamentalist views on
    >> this issue... And that you would likely not so describe it...

    >
    > It wouldn't have been my choice of words, but I'm not going to disagree.
    > :)
    >
    >> It is a scandal that browsers have not well supported some of
    >> the features (like i-frames)

    >
    > Don't even start on iframes - they're even worse than normal frames.
    >
    >> that would at least make me hurry
    >> to change my one remaining framed site. The feature of keeping
    >> the navigation visible at all times.

    >
    > position: fixed;
    > There are workarounds for IE.
    >
    >> I no longer design with
    >> frames but am constantly struck by the almost totally absurd
    >> situation of navs scrolling out of site

    >
    > Why is that so absurd? That's how most sites work. If your pages are too
    > long, add the menu at the bottom of the page as well.
    >


    Why is it absurd? You are in the middle of a long page and you
    can't see any nav info and other comforting things? You panic.
    You get an anxiety attack. You take pills but they take time to
    act. You are nervous. You spill things on the keyboard. You
    don't want to use the home button and lose your place and the
    page designer does not want to put in bits and pieces of nav and
    other stuff in the middle to make you feel comfortable. You want
    to think where you might go or have been with reminder info
    etc etc etc. This is absurd. This is weird! You don't think so?
    Of course, as I said, we have become accustomed to this
    craziness... OK my turn to have done a Bruce... But underneath
    all this Brucing, there is a point that non fundamentalists will
    see... :)

    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Neredbojias <>

    > With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
    >
    >>> From: Mark Parnell <>

    >>
    >>> Previously in alt.html, Khorne <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> I've got a problem with spacing/border between frames under Internet
    >>>> Explorer.
    >>>> Can somebody help me to fix this problem?
    >>>
    >>> Redesign the page without frames.
    >>>

    >>
    >> ... and lose a possibly worthwhile facility. I think this latter
    >> is fair enough comment given that we don't really know what the
    >> OP is doing in detail... I know you hold fundamentalist views on
    >> this issue... And that you would likely not so describe it...
    >>
    >> It is a scandal that browsers have not well supported some of
    >> the features (like i-frames) that would at least make me hurry
    >> to change my one remaining framed site. The feature of keeping
    >> the navigation visible at all times. I no longer design with
    >> frames but am constantly struck by the almost totally absurd
    >> situation of navs scrolling out of site (yes, mine scroll away
    >> like all the rest of us sheep).

    >
    > It isn't that hard to "seat" a nav section at the top of a page, and re:
    > IE, you can even do it without javascript if you have some server-side
    > support.
    >


    There is a lot of talk about the top of the page in frames
    discussions. Frankly, I am not so keen to defend frames for this
    but it is possible that a not very high top frame might be ok.
    It is the side nav frame that can be useful and hard to match
    without frames. Most monitors have more room in width and are
    therefore more accommodating...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Khorne

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:

    > A misunderstanding perhaps? Or a desire to see the worst? Your
    > remark is not appropriate to my comment (in spite of correctly
    > identifying the cons) but this may be my fault too. I was
    > referring to pros rather than the cons.


    I know. And my point was that I don't see any pros.

    > And your remark about
    > the myriad of scrollbars is unfair. There need not be a myriad
    > of them at all.


    For most framed sites, there does. Because I need the text fairly large
    to be able to read it, and if there are no scrollbars (e.g. on the
    menu), I can't get to half the menu items.

    > This is the unfairness of inappropriate
    > exaggeration. I forget whether the scholastics had a fancy Latin
    > name for this reasoning mistake? Let us call it something with
    > an Australian flavour - what about a "Bruce"? You have committed
    > the Fallacy of Bruce.


    *sniff* I miss brucie. :-(

    > Why is it absurd? You are in the middle of a long page and you
    > can't see any nav info and other comforting things?


    You press "home" on your keyboard. It's all back again.

    > You panic.
    > You get an anxiety attack. You take pills but they take time to
    > act. You are nervous. You spill things on the keyboard.


    Unplug the modem and go have a lie down.

    > You
    > don't want to use the home button and lose your place and the


    OK, so (on Windows at least, and let's face it - Windows users are the
    only ones likely to have this issue) scroll up to the top of the page,
    but don't release the scrollbar. You can have a good look at the
    navigation. When you're done, move the mouse back over to the left away
    from the scrollbar, and the page will jump back to where you were before
    you started scrolling. Amazing! ;-)

    > page designer does not want to put in bits and pieces of nav and
    > other stuff in the middle to make you feel comfortable.


    Understandably.

    > This is absurd. This is weird! You don't think so?


    Absolutely. I think it's very weird that you feel that way.

    > Of course, as I said, we have become accustomed to this
    > craziness... OK my turn to have done a Bruce... But underneath
    > all this Brucing, there is a point that non fundamentalists will
    > see... :)


    Sadly, I fail to see it.

    Anyway as previously noted, you can still keep the menu on the screen
    without using frames, if that's the issue.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Sep 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Mark Parnell <>
    >
    > Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:
    >
    >> A misunderstanding perhaps? Or a desire to see the worst? Your
    >> remark is not appropriate to my comment (in spite of correctly
    >> identifying the cons) but this may be my fault too. I was
    >> referring to pros rather than the cons.

    >
    > I know. And my point was that I don't see any pros.
    >


    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 have shown the tendency already by
    talking about home buttons, menus at the bottom, holding mouse
    buttons downs etc etc etc. You miss the simplicity of the gift
    to the viewer. And when finally you could be gotten kicking and
    screaming to admit that in isolation some features could be seen
    as pros you will make the point that overall it is better to do
    without frames. On this last point I am sure you have a good
    case. But it is a different case to the case about individual
    advantages. Ah... maybe I am wasting my breath...
    fundamentalists are fundamentalists whether in religion or
    politics or anything... :)

    >> And your remark about
    >> the myriad of scrollbars is unfair. There need not be a myriad
    >> of them at all.

    >
    > For most framed sites, there does. Because I need the text fairly large
    > to be able to read it, and if there are no scrollbars (e.g. on the
    > menu), I can't get to half the menu items.
    >


    Well, I did not think we were talking about some statistical
    thing about most framed sites. The designer must take account of
    text going larger and set appropriate widths... And you also
    have the facility of dragging the frame borders... If you are
    enlarging greatly, I would bet you would be having to do quite a
    bit of fiddling on the average poorly designed non-framed sites
    too

    >> This is the unfairness of inappropriate
    >> exaggeration. I forget whether the scholastics had a fancy Latin
    >> name for this reasoning mistake? Let us call it something with
    >> an Australian flavour - what about a "Bruce"? You have committed
    >> the Fallacy of Bruce.

    >
    > *sniff* I miss brucie. :-(


    Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I did not mean to refer
    to your "Brucie" in any way. I do not know this person but I do
    know about his hero status... I say this because I do not want
    to be drawn and quartered. Honest, I didn't mean nuthin'. Just a
    coincidence of name. (yeah, i know, it may have just "reminded"
    you). But I say this in case...
    >
    >> Why is it absurd? You are in the middle of a long page and you
    >> can't see any nav info and other comforting things?

    >
    > You press "home" on your keyboard. It's all back again.
    >
    >
    >> You
    >> don't want to use the home button and lose your place and the

    >
    > OK, so (on Windows at least, and let's face it - Windows users are the
    > only ones likely to have this issue) scroll up to the top of the page,
    > but don't release the scrollbar. You can have a good look at the
    > navigation. When you're done, move the mouse back over to the left away
    > from the scrollbar, and the page will jump back to where you were before
    > you started scrolling. Amazing! ;-)
    >
    >> page designer does not want to put in bits and pieces of nav and
    >> other stuff in the middle to make you feel comfortable.

    >
    > Understandably.
    >
    >
    > Anyway as previously noted, you can still keep the menu on the screen
    > without using frames, if that's the issue.
    >


    I confess that for me this is a big issue often. I had gotten
    the impression that fixed position was not well supported? Must
    look into this again. You are most welcome to say more on this
    feature and the workarounds etc and I would show the appropriate
    appreciation... (I have more NZ jokes to give out...)
    dorayme, Sep 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Khorne

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> 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.


    Probably. But that's because there generally *is* a better alternative.

    > You have shown the tendency already by
    > talking about home buttons, menus at the bottom, holding mouse
    > buttons downs etc etc etc. You miss the simplicity of the gift
    > to the viewer.


    But as I said before, that's not what the viewer is going to expect,
    based on most other sites. And the detriments that come with frames
    IMNSHO far outweigh any potential advantages.

    > And when finally you could be gotten kicking and
    > screaming to admit that in isolation some features could be seen
    > as pros you will make the point that overall it is better to do
    > without frames.


    Indeed.

    > On this last point I am sure you have a good
    > case. But it is a different case to the case about individual
    > advantages.


    How can it be? If you use frames, you get all the effects of them, not
    just an individual feature.

    > Ah... maybe I am wasting my breath...


    I'm happy to continue until such time as the conversation degrades into
    flaming or mudslinging. :)

    > fundamentalists are fundamentalists whether in religion or
    > politics or anything... :)


    But you miss the point that I am also right. ;-)

    > Well, I did not think we were talking about some statistical
    > thing about most framed sites. The designer must take account of
    > text going larger and set appropriate widths... And you also
    > have the facility of dragging the frame borders...


    I'm thinking more of the height of the screen - too many items in a
    sidebar menu will make it go off the bottom of the screen, regardless of
    how wide I make it.

    > If you are
    > enlarging greatly, I would bet you would be having to do quite a
    > bit of fiddling on the average poorly designed non-framed sites
    > too


    No, I just go on to the next search result, that I *can* read. Same as I
    do with a framed site.

    > Just to clear up any misunderstanding, I did not mean to refer
    > to your "Brucie" in any way. I do not know this person but I do
    > know about his hero status... I say this because I do not want
    > to be drawn and quartered. Honest, I didn't mean nuthin'. Just a
    > coincidence of name. (yeah, i know, it may have just "reminded"
    > you). But I say this in case...


    I know. I was just reminiscing. :)

    > I confess that for me this is a big issue often. I had gotten
    > the impression that fixed position was not well supported? Must
    > look into this again.


    position: fixed; is supported in all modern browsers. There are
    workarounds for older browsers like IE, and it doesn't even have to
    involve scripting.
    http://tagsoup.com/-dev/null-/css/fixed/

    > You are most welcome to say more on this
    > feature and the workarounds etc and I would show the appropriate
    > appreciation... (I have more NZ jokes to give out...)


    NZ jokes are always welcome. :)

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
    Mark Parnell, Sep 7, 2005
    #15
  16. Khorne

    JennyLin Guest

    "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    news:7lbmw9fshhqp$...
    > Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:


    >
    > NZ jokes are always welcome. :)


    I hope the next is an improvement on the last :)

    Jenny
    JennyLin, Sep 7, 2005
    #16
  17. Khorne

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

    > > It isn't that hard to "seat" a nav section at the top of a page, and re:
    > > IE, you can even do it without javascript if you have some server-side
    > > support.
    > >

    >
    > There is a lot of talk about the top of the page in frames
    > discussions. Frankly, I am not so keen to defend frames for this
    > but it is possible that a not very high top frame might be ok.
    > It is the side nav frame that can be useful and hard to match
    > without frames. Most monitors have more room in width and are
    > therefore more accommodating...


    A static left nav can be done with css, too. You must know css
    moderately well and be willing to experiment. At least 95% of what I've
    learned about html and the like came via experimentation. Most of the
    rest originated from here (esp. refinements of "experimental" results.)

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Sep 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Khorne

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, JennyLin quothed:

    >
    > "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    > news:7lbmw9fshhqp$...
    > > Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:

    >
    > >
    > > NZ jokes are always welcome. :)

    >
    > I hope the next is an improvement on the last :)


    Don't fret. People only make jokes about New Zealand because of it's
    mutually agreeable obscurity.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Sep 7, 2005
    #18
  19. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "JennyLin" <>
    >
    > "Mark Parnell" <> wrote in message
    > news:7lbmw9fshhqp$...
    >> Previously in alt.html, dorayme <> said:

    >
    >>
    >> NZ jokes are always welcome. :)

    >
    > I hope the next is an improvement on the last :)
    >
    > Jenny
    >


    Hang on Jenny! You said the joke was *good* last time? Having second
    thoughts?

    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 8, 2005
    #19
  20. Khorne

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Neredbojias <>
    >
    > With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
    >
    >>> It isn't that hard to "seat" a nav section at the top of a page, and re:
    >>> IE, you can even do it without javascript if you have some server-side
    >>> support.
    >>>

    >>
    >> There is a lot of talk about the top of the page in frames
    >> discussions. Frankly, I am not so keen to defend frames for this
    >> but it is possible that a not very high top frame might be ok.
    >> It is the side nav frame that can be useful and hard to match
    >> without frames. Most monitors have more room in width and are
    >> therefore more accommodating...

    >
    > A static left nav can be done with css, too. You must know css
    > moderately well and be willing to experiment. At least 95% of what I've
    > learned about html and the like came via experimentation. Most of the
    > rest originated from here (esp. refinements of "experimental" results.)
    >


    Sure, but it means putting code on every page and again sure,
    there are includes and php and stuff one can go into. But I
    understood from the talk around here that frames were more
    reliable than fixed positions over browsers, young and old...

    I have to stress that the total argument between frames and non
    frames is one thing. For example, I would be unlikely to make a
    commercial site with frames again. But it is a different thing
    to the fact of the easy advantages of some features of frames.
    (I like updating and looking at the one site with frames on my
    books, it is nice to operate and think through using the nav
    system on the left and worrying mainly only about the simpler
    code of the right content).

    In my mild dispute with the good Mark Parnell, I have been
    unable to get this point across. It is hard to get folk who are
    convinced of the evil of frames in general to admit the
    slightest thing about them on the positive side of the ledger.
    To me, this is often a sign of a likely mistake in reasoning to
    do with a confusion about the scope of the issue at hand. Let me
    give you an example: I find I have nothing good to say about
    some political or religious positions because they stink *on the
    whole*. I am not inclined to see any strong or even mildly
    reasonable points *for* the positions concerned. I am most
    reluctant to concede the slightest thing, let alone encourage
    them in the slightest. But in this, I am probably more
    unreasonable than I should be!

    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 8, 2005
    #20
    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. tshad
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,257
    tshad
    Jan 31, 2005
  2. phl
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,346
    Martin Jay
    Jun 8, 2006
  3. Coder
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    696
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Jun 24, 2006
  4. =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIFDDtnBwaW5n?=

    border-color: #003366; border-width: 2px;

    =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIFDDtnBwaW5n?=, Jul 17, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    3,529
    Adrienne Boswell
    Jul 30, 2006
  5. dorayme

    Re: Border Frames and Rules

    dorayme, Oct 15, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
    richard
    Oct 15, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page