Help with HTML frames

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

It may ease the implementer's task, but so what.

Ok, some people like to make things more complicated.

The main page in my app is reached via a table on another page. The
table contents may change (not very often, but it happens) based on
database contents. So they shouldn't be bookmarking even the main page,
as it may not exist at some future point. And they certainly shouldn't
be bookmarking the sub pages, as they are likely to get rubbish (data is
passed back and forth via JS variables in the top frame).

Do you have full control of your 50 users' browsers? If JavaScript is

In fact, if I had my way, I'd prevent any of these going into the
history stack.

JavaScript should be able do that, for those who have it enabled.

Google doesn't need to know anything about any of my app's pages -
indeed, shouldn't because the users need to login to reach them.

You didn't say that before...

 

[still me]

1. There is only one page to deal with, not three or four (frameset,
heading page, nav page, footer page, and of course, content page).

That's not exactly a big issue. My header, footer, and navigation
almost always end up in separate, includable files (exact type
dependant on application).

2. While looking at any of the sub-pages (in this case images), a
visitor can *bookmark* the sub-page, unlike in frames where only the
frameset page can be bookmarked.

Actually a shortcoming of browsers more than of frames, but true. If
you need bookmarking, they you don't want frames.

3. Assuming pages of text rather than images, Google will index the
content on the sub-page, and when a visitor goes there (direct link sans
frameset), there is *no* header, footer, and more importantly, no
navigation.

A shortcoming of Google, although a practical problem. However, you
shouldn't make the assumption that every page needs to be indexed by
google.

That should do it, eh?

For typical uses, yes. Frames can still have practical application.

 

[still me]

No, the markup isn't exactly a "piece of cake", but neither
is it so esoteric as to be improbably conformed. The point is don't be so
lazy and you may be surprised by what you can do.

If you don't mind a secondary scroll bar (which can actually be a
major feature), you can do it a lot simpler with just a scrollable
div.

 

[Tim Streater]

Ok, some people like to make things more complicated.


Do you have full control of your 50 users' browsers? If JavaScript is
disabled, that will certainly fail. <g>

Then they have my phone number, and I will ask them what sort of
Internet engineer are they, running without JS to our database front-end
site. This has not been a problem in the 8 years since I started
developing this.

JavaScript should be able do that, for those who have it enabled.

Interesting. When I looked into this, the docs I looked at seemed to be
quite clear that there was no way to prevent a page going into the
history stack, and that this was deliberate.

You didn't say that before...

Well, there it is. The dangers of making assumptions ...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Then they have my phone number, and I will ask them what sort of
Internet engineer are they, running without JS to our database front-end
site. This has not been a problem in the 8 years since I started
developing this.

You miss the point entirely. What you do for your "web"site for your 50
engineers has *nothing* to do for *recommended* practice for public
website design. You may *force* your 50 engineers to install an IE
ActiveX control so your page can embed AutoCAD drawings but this should
not be general advice, especially for newbies on web design.

 

[Tim Streater]

You miss the point entirely. What you do for your "web"site for your 50
engineers has *nothing* to do for *recommended* practice for public
website design. You may *force* your 50 engineers to install an IE
ActiveX control so your page can embed AutoCAD drawings but this should
not be general advice, especially for newbies on web design.

I never said that it did. I "force" them, as you put it, to use JS,
hardly an onerous requirement is this day and age. I know of no browser
that doesn't support it and the several I tested against the app gave,
by and large, no problems.

If I forced them to use IE6 or higher under XP *only*, as many sites
appear to do, then you might have something to complain about.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I never said that it did. I "force" them, as you put it, to use JS,
hardly an onerous requirement is this day and age. I know of no
browser that doesn't support it and the several I tested against the
app gave, by and large, no problems.

http://offbyone.com/

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I never said that it did. I "force" them, as you put it, to use JS,
hardly an onerous requirement is this day and age. I know of no browser
that doesn't support it and the several I tested against the app gave,
by and large, no problems.

If I forced them to use IE6 or higher under XP *only*, as many sites
appear to do, then you might have something to complain about.

The point is frames, a hack to begin with, are unnecessary today when a
webserver is involved and with the ubiquitous availability of
server-side scripting. Back at their creation, server-side was rare and
expensive and server-side languages were either in their infancy or yet
to be developed. Other than sheer ignorance I can see no use for them
except the narrow application where a webserver is not available, e.i.,
on local files systems, CD-ROM applications, very-very cheap hosting
with no server-side.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:35:07
GMT Tim Streater scribed:

Again, you don't say why it's better, you merely assert that it is.

Why? -Progress, advancement. Also, it's ultimately simpler. Take
Microsoft out of the equation and it's a lot simpler.

What I have created works just fine. Changing it to another approach
is way down my list of priorities.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who condemns frame
usage. Frames are fine much of the time and the reasons cited against
them often seem trivial to me. Nevertheless, with today's markup
advancements (-as flawed as they sometimes are) and additional server-
side options, it is usually easier to employ other methods for the older
and more cumbersome practices which frames require to accomplish the same
goals. The "fly in the ointment" is Internet Explorer, but there are
workarounds even for that available to those who endeavor to keep their
skills as current as they should.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:50:00
GMT Tim Streater scribed:

Interesting. When I looked into this, the docs I looked at seemed to
be quite clear that there was no way to prevent a page going into the
history stack, and that this was deliberate.

This isn't true at all. Location.replace() replaces a page without adding
a slot to the history. Perhaps the docs you mention were once correct but
not updated when updating would have been manifestly prudent...

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:48:39
GMT still me scribed:

If you don't mind a secondary scroll bar (which can actually be a
major feature), you can do it a lot simpler with just a scrollable
div.

Hah, the example I gave is actually just that with a secondary scrollbar
hidden underneath the top (-in ie, of course). [This was done because ie6
miscalculates widths of auto-scrolling divs otherwise.]

 

[dorayme]

The point is frames, a hack to begin with, are unnecessary today when a
webserver is involved and with the ubiquitous availability of
server-side scripting. Back at their creation, server-side was rare and
expensive and server-side languages were either in their infancy or yet
to be developed. Other than sheer ignorance I can see no use for them
except the narrow application where a webserver is not available, e.i.,
on local files systems, CD-ROM applications, very-very cheap hosting
with no server-side.

Anyway, I recall moving from frames a while back after getting
fed up of a few things and being gently prodded in this group...
not least by my old pal Mark Parnell. Talking about whom, anyone
feintly tempted by frames might as well do them well, pertinent
to which is:

<http://www.markparnell.com.au/articles/frames.php>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Anyway, I recall moving from frames a while back after getting
fed up of a few things and being gently prodded in this group...
not least by my old pal Mark Parnell. Talking about whom, anyone
feintly tempted by frames might as well do them well, pertinent
to which is:

<http://www.markparnell.com.au/articles/frames.php>

Hey yeah, where is old Mark?

 

[dorayme]

Hey yeah, where is old Mark?

He got a big and busy job and abandoned us all...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

He got a big and busy job and abandoned us all...

Oh, he got a life eh?

 

[Ben C]

dorayme wrote: [...]

He got a big and busy job and abandoned us all...

Oh, he got a life eh?

Since when was a big and busy job a life?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote: [...]

He got a big and busy job and abandoned us all...

Oh, he got a life eh?

Since when was a big and busy job a life?

Getting monetary compensation for the time makes it a life.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote: [...]

He got a big and busy job and abandoned us all...

Oh, he got a life eh?

Since when was a big and busy job a life?

True, when I am snowed under with work, I feel life has all but
expired... real life for me is time for utter nonsense,
inconsequentiality, trivia, idle speculation, putting some really
cheap parts in my car to keep it going (this is called doing a
lot with a little). I stand appalled at any other attitude.