Having problem with frames

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Stubbo_of_Oz, Jan 25, 2007.

  1. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Stubbo_of_Oz Guest

    I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.

    I got some coding from:-

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html

    and adpated it to my needs and came up with this:-

    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
    </HEAD>
    <FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
    <FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
    <FRAME src="head.html">
    <FRAME src="contents.html">
    </FRAMESET>
    <FRAME src="mainpage.html">
    </FRAMESET>
    </HTML>

    I have tried it out with very simple .html files with one word in
    each.

    The three .html files show up OK when I load into Netscape 7 but do
    not appear at all in Internet Explorer 7


    Any help as to why would be greatly appreciated.

    Cheers ...........
    --
    Stubbo of Oz
    Central Coast
    NSW, Australia
     
    Stubbo_of_Oz, Jan 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Nik Coughlin, Jan 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stubbo_of_Oz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Stubbo_of_Oz <> wrote:

    > I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >
    > I got some coding from:-
    >
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
    >
    > and adpated it to my needs and came up with this:-
    >
    > <HTML>
    > <HEAD>
    > <TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
    > </HEAD>
    > <FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
    > <FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
    > <FRAME src="head.html">
    > <FRAME src="contents.html">
    > </FRAMESET>
    > <FRAME src="mainpage.html">
    > </FRAMESET>
    > </HTML>
    >
    > I have tried it out with very simple .html files with one word in
    > each.
    >
    > The three .html files show up OK when I load into Netscape 7 but do
    > not appear at all in Internet Explorer 7
    >
    >
    > Any help as to why would be greatly appreciated.
    >


    First put:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

    at the top of your page and post it to a server along with your
    other html files, which should have doctypes (not necessarily the
    above one, perhaps:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    And then test and see and come back if need be.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jan 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Stubbo_of_Oz Guest

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:43:59 +1100, dorayme
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Stubbo_of_Oz <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>
    >> I got some coding from:-
    >>
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
    >>
    >> and adpated it to my needs and came up with this:-
    >>
    >> <HTML>
    >> <HEAD>
    >> <TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
    >> </HEAD>
    >> <FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
    >> <FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
    >> <FRAME src="head.html">
    >> <FRAME src="contents.html">
    >> </FRAMESET>
    >> <FRAME src="mainpage.html">
    >> </FRAMESET>
    >> </HTML>
    >>
    >> I have tried it out with very simple .html files with one word in
    >> each.
    >>
    >> The three .html files show up OK when I load into Netscape 7 but do
    >> not appear at all in Internet Explorer 7
    >>
    >>
    >> Any help as to why would be greatly appreciated.
    >>

    >
    >First put:
    >
    ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
    >
    >at the top of your page and post it to a server along with your
    >other html files, which should have doctypes (not necessarily the
    >above one, perhaps:
    >
    ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    >
    >And then test and see and come back if need be.


    G'Day Dorayme

    Many thanks for reply

    Those lines (<!DOCTYPE etc.) were in the files - I just didn't clutter
    up my message with them :) Maybe I should have?

    I loaded them up to server and, yes, they do work in IE7!!

    So the question is, why does IE read them OK from a server but not
    from my hard drive whereas Netscape does read Ok from HD? Very strange
    --
    Stubbo of Oz
    Central Coast
    NSW, Australia
     
    Stubbo_of_Oz, Jan 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Stubbo_of_Oz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Stubbo_of_Oz <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:43:59 +1100, dorayme
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > Stubbo_of_Oz <> wrote:


    > >> The three .html files show up OK when I load into Netscape 7 but do
    > >> not appear at all in Internet Explorer 7
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Any help as to why would be greatly appreciated.
    > >>

    > >
    > >First put:
    > >
    > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
    > >
    > >at the top of your page and post it to a server along with your
    > >other html files, which should have doctypes (not necessarily the
    > >above one, perhaps:
    > >
    > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    > >
    > >And then test and see and come back if need be.

    >
    > G'Day Dorayme
    >
    > Many thanks for reply
    >
    > Those lines (<!DOCTYPE etc.) were in the files - I just didn't clutter
    > up my message with them :) Maybe I should have?
    >
    > I loaded them up to server and, yes, they do work in IE7!!
    >
    > So the question is, why does IE read them OK from a server but not
    > from my hard drive whereas Netscape does read Ok from HD? Very strange


    There may be issues of case, make sure that capital letters are
    the same in all the relevant names to do with your attempt here.
    If it is not about this, then more info is needed.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jan 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Ed Seedhouse Guest

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:55:37 +1100, Stubbo_of_Oz
    <> wrote:


    >I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.


    Don't bother learning them. They are a 1990's solution that never
    worked properly and should now be totally avoided;
     
    Ed Seedhouse, Jan 25, 2007
    #6
  7. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Paul Watt Guest

    Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    > I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >
    > I got some coding from:-
    >
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
    >
    > and adpated it to my needs and came up with this:-
    >
    > <HTML>
    > <HEAD>
    > <TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
    > </HEAD>
    > <FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
    > <FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
    > <FRAME src="head.html">
    > <FRAME src="contents.html">
    > </FRAMESET>
    > <FRAME src="mainpage.html">
    > </FRAMESET>
    > </HTML>
    >
    > I have tried it out with very simple .html files with one word in
    > each.
    >
    > The three .html files show up OK when I load into Netscape 7 but do
    > not appear at all in Internet Explorer 7
    >
    >
    > Any help as to why would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Cheers ...........


    Frames are evil. 'nuff said.
    --
    Cheers

    Paul watt
    http://www.paulwattdesigns.com
     
    Paul Watt, Jan 25, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul Watt schreef:
    > Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    >> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>

    [snipped]
    >
    > Frames are evil. 'nuff said.


    You know that, I know that
    and we know why.
    But does Stubbo know?


    Rob
     
    Rob Waaijenberg, Jan 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Stubbo_of_Oz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Seedhouse <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:55:37 +1100, Stubbo_of_Oz
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.

    >
    > Don't bother learning them. They are a 1990's solution that never
    > worked properly and should now be totally avoided;


    They worked well when on the site for nearly everyone when the
    site was competently written and managed. There has been no well
    supported replacement for some of their best features and it is
    now 2007.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jan 25, 2007
    #9
  10. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Stubbo_of_Oz Guest

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:28:35 +0100, Rob Waaijenberg
    <> wrote:

    >Paul Watt schreef:
    >> Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    >>> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>>

    >[snipped]
    >>
    >> Frames are evil. 'nuff said.

    >
    >You know that, I know that
    >and we know why.
    >But does Stubbo know?


    What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
    that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames seemingly
    successfully.

    --
    Stubbo of Oz
    Central Coast
    NSW, Australia
     
    Stubbo_of_Oz, Jan 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:28:35 +0100, Rob Waaijenberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Paul Watt schreef:
    >>> Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    >>>> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>>>

    >> [snipped]
    >>>
    >>> Frames are evil. 'nuff said.

    >>
    >> You know that, I know that
    >> and we know why.
    >> But does Stubbo know?

    >
    > What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
    > that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames seemingly
    > successfully.


    Ever heard the phrase, "where there's smoke there's fire"?
     
    Nik Coughlin, Jan 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:28:35 +0100, Rob Waaijenberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Paul Watt schreef:
    >>> Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    >>>> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>>>

    >> [snipped]
    >>>
    >>> Frames are evil. 'nuff said.

    >>
    >> You know that, I know that
    >> and we know why.
    >> But does Stubbo know?

    >
    > What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
    > that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames seemingly
    > successfully.


    Ever heard the phrase, "where there's smoke there's fire"?
     
    Nik Coughlin, Jan 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:28:35 +0100, Rob Waaijenberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Paul Watt schreef:
    >>> Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    >>>> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>>>

    >> [snipped]
    >>> Frames are evil. 'nuff said.

    >> You know that, I know that
    >> and we know why.
    >> But does Stubbo know?

    >
    > What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
    > that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames seemingly
    > successfully.
    >


    A lot of folks smoke, yet it doesn't make cigarettes any less deadly!

    Seriously, there are plenty of examples of *very poor* websites out
    there, but our job here is that hopefully there will now be one less!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jan 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Stubbo_of_Oz Guest

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:32:21 +1100, dorayme
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Stubbo_of_Oz <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:43:59 +1100, dorayme
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>,
    >> > Stubbo_of_Oz <> wrote:

    >
    >> >> The three .html files show up OK when I load into Netscape 7 but do
    >> >> not appear at all in Internet Explorer 7
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Any help as to why would be greatly appreciated.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >First put:
    >> >
    >> ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
    >> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
    >> >
    >> >at the top of your page and post it to a server along with your
    >> >other html files, which should have doctypes (not necessarily the
    >> >above one, perhaps:
    >> >
    >> ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    >> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    >> >
    >> >And then test and see and come back if need be.

    >>
    >> G'Day Dorayme
    >>
    >> Many thanks for reply
    >>
    >> Those lines (<!DOCTYPE etc.) were in the files - I just didn't clutter
    >> up my message with them :) Maybe I should have?
    >>
    >> I loaded them up to server and, yes, they do work in IE7!!
    >>
    >> So the question is, why does IE read them OK from a server but not
    >> from my hard drive whereas Netscape does read Ok from HD? Very strange

    >
    >There may be issues of case, make sure that capital letters are
    >the same in all the relevant names to do with your attempt here.
    >If it is not about this, then more info is needed.


    Thanks for follow up reply.

    Case is identical.

    And now something VERY strange!!

    I was fiddling around with a file that worked in IE and one that
    didn't and copied code from the working file bit by bit to the
    non-working file to see if I could find a difference.

    I ended up with two files (different names) that had IDENTICAL content
    (confirmed this with a hex editor program to look at ALL the content,
    not just the visible characters - both files definitely identical).

    And the "non-working" file STILL did not work even though the
    identical "working" file worked. (I'm talking about reading them from
    my hard drive, not from a server.)

    I even deleted all my IE history and temporary files in case an old
    version of the non-working file was being read from there but it still
    did not work.

    (Both work in Netscape.)

    Yes, I know you all say frames are bad and to forget about them but
    being of a curious analytical nature I wanted to see what made one
    file work and another not work. All I can conclude is that there is
    something wrong with IE!! And I know a lot of you will say "Yes, there
    is LOTS wrong with IE!!!"




    --
    Stubbo of Oz
    Central Coast
    NSW, Australia
     
    Stubbo_of_Oz, Jan 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:45:10 GMT Stubbo_of_Oz scribed:

    > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:28:35 +0100, Rob Waaijenberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Paul Watt schreef:
    >>> Stubbo_of_Oz wrote:
    >>>> I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    >>>>

    >>[snipped]
    >>>
    >>> Frames are evil. 'nuff said.

    >>
    >>You know that, I know that
    >>and we know why.
    >>But does Stubbo know?

    >
    > What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
    > that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames seemingly
    > successfully.


    Frames are no more "evil" than javascript or anything else, but they should
    be used intelligently. Yeah, it's a nice little saying, but that doesn't
    make it true.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
     
    Neredbojias, Jan 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Neredbojias wrote:

    > they should be used intelligently. Yeah, it's a nice little
    > saying, but that doesn't make it true.


    Saying something never makes it true, but saying something can
    reflect that which is true.

    --
    Blinky
    Killfiling all posts from Google Groups
    Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Jan 26, 2007
    #16
  17. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Ed Seedhouse Guest

    On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 04:26:13 -0500, Neredbojias <>
    wrote:

    >> What I know is that a lot of people SAY they are bad but I also know
    >> that there are an awful lot of sites out there using frames seemingly
    >> successfully.


    >Frames are no more "evil" than javascript or anything else, but they should
    >be used intelligently. Yeah, it's a nice little saying, but that doesn't
    >make it true.


    But there is as well as the "nice little statement" plenty of actual
    evidence that frames are a bad solution to a problem and that CSS with
    html can do it better. I, alas, have to maintain a frame based intranet
    and I curse them nearly every day.

    "Evil?" that's an over simplification. "Failed solution that doesn't
    work wheras other better solutions are available", that's a pretty much
    established fact.
     
    Ed Seedhouse, Jan 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 26 Jan, 09:26, Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > Frames are no more "evil" than javascript or anything else,


    Frames cause problems. They _always_ cause these problems.

    JavaScript doesn't have to cause problems until it's used in an "evil"
    way. it is possible to use JavaScript correctly and avoid them.
     
    Andy Dingley, Jan 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Stubbo_of_Oz

    Joe (GKF) Guest

    In article <doraymeRidThis-6717D0.08082026012007@news-
    vip.optusnet.com.au>, says...
    > In article <>,
    > Ed Seedhouse <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:55:37 +1100, Stubbo_of_Oz
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > >I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.

    > >
    > > Don't bother learning them. They are a 1990's solution that never
    > > worked properly and should now be totally avoided;

    >
    > They worked well when on the site for nearly everyone when the
    > site was competently written and managed. There has been no well
    > supported replacement for some of their best features and it is
    > now 2007.
    >
    >

    The problem with frames is that they break the web.
    I can imagine in-house intranet situations where they might be perfect,
    but not for the web.
    Go to http://graspages.cjb.cc then click on rant then click on frames,
    or go http://graspages.cjb.cc/rant/framerant.php

    And it's nice that our Prime Minister has endorsed shorter showers and
    the purchase of rainwater tanks. Now, if and when he adopts nore of the
    other 22 ideas (ad below in my sig), we might start to get somewhere.

    --
    Please visit -
    Water saving tips: http://graspages.cjb.cc/bigdry/
     
    Joe (GKF), Jan 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Stubbo_of_Oz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Joe (GKF) <> wrote:

    > In article <doraymeRidThis-6717D0.08082026012007@news-
    > vip.optusnet.com.au>, says...
    > > In article <>,
    > > Ed Seedhouse <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:55:37 +1100, Stubbo_of_Oz
    > > > <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > >I am trying out frames - not very conversant with them yet.
    > > >
    > > > Don't bother learning them. They are a 1990's solution that never
    > > > worked properly and should now be totally avoided;

    > >
    > > They worked well when on the site for nearly everyone when the
    > > site was competently written and managed. There has been no well
    > > supported replacement for some of their best features and it is
    > > now 2007.
    > >
    > >

    > The problem with frames is that they break the web.
    > I can imagine in-house intranet situations where they might be perfect,
    > but not for the web.
    > Go to http://graspages.cjb.cc then click on rant then click on frames,
    > or go http://graspages.cjb.cc/rant/framerant.php
    >


    I had a framed site for years and it did not break anything, the
    world went on fine and people got info from the web site and the
    sun still shone. But it's ok I know what you are referring to.
    All the ifs and buts and counterfactuals... I must make another
    framed site one day for fun. But after I write up the essay on
    The Magic of Tables to stir up the church leaders.

    > And it's nice that our Prime Minister has endorsed shorter showers and
    > the purchase of rainwater tanks. Now, if and when he adopts nore of the
    > other 22 ideas (ad below in my sig), we might start to get somewhere.


    You are a farmer right? Robust and all. So I add a little tip
    that you and I might suggest to people but I would bet with
    generous odds that our PM would not use it:

    After the last pee at night, don't flush. Take a look in the
    morning. If the bowl looks sparkling clean, the cistern is
    leaking and you should fix it (often a worn seal)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jan 26, 2007
    #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. Craig G
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    297
    Craig G
    Feb 24, 2005
  2. Powerslave2112

    From Frames to no frames?

    Powerslave2112, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    603
    brucie
    Jan 20, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,207
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    375
    Andrew Thompson
    Aug 23, 2008
  5. Jofio
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    114
    BootNic
    Oct 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page