frames and border

K

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
 
D

dorayme

From: "Khorne said:
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
 
D

dorayme

From: "Khorne said:
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.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html 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.
 
T

Toby Inkster

Khorne said:
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.
 
D

dorayme

From: Mark Parnell said:
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
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
... 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.
 
D

dorayme

From: Toby Inkster said:
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
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
... 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.
 
D

dorayme

From: Mark Parnell said:
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.

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


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


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


position: fixed;
There are workarounds for IE.


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
 
D

dorayme

From: Neredbojias said:
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...

dorayme
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html 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.
 
D

dorayme

From: Mark Parnell said:
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... :)
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
*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...
You press "home" on your keyboard. It's all back again.



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! ;-)


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...)
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html 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. :)
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
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.)
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, JennyLin quothed:
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.
 
D

dorayme

From: "JennyLin said:
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
 
D

dorayme

From: Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:


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
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top