substitute for frames

[Gregor Traven]

Hi

I'm currently using three frames on my site. The left one is the one with
the navbar and the right one is the one which displays content. Basically,
when I push one of the buttons on my navbar, one of the pages opens in right
frame.
Links that are applied to this buttons can only open pages by defining the
Target (_blank or _parent or _self or _top or mainFrame or topFrame or
leftFrame) which is basically another frame. Now I want to rebuild this site
so that there would be no frames but a single page.

My question is how can I open my content (pages) on the right to my navbar
without using frames? Can I do something using the Target property? For
example instead of "_blank" I could define a certain area on the right of
the navbar and then pages would open in that area.

Thanks for the answers

Gregor

 

[Nico Schuyt]

My question is how can I open my content (pages) on the right to my
navbar without using frames?

By including the menu on every page. Nothing more than <? include
"menu.htm"; ?> (if your server supports PHP)
Alternative: SSI (server side includes)

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Gregor Traven said:

Hi
g'day

I'm currently using three frames on my site.

I want to rebuild this site so that there would be no frames but a
single page.

YAY! use server side scripting to assemble the page before sending it to
the visitor. http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Include_one_file_in_another

 

[aa]

If you do not want to get involved with SSI, ASP/PHP or your server does not
support these, make your menu into a separate .js file.
Then make you page a table and in the left-hand <td> import the meny using
<script src="">, leaving the right-hand <td> for the contents

 

[rf]

If you do not want to get involved with SSI, ASP/PHP or your server does not
support these, make your menu into a separate .js file.
Then make you page a table and in the left-hand <td> import the meny using
<script src="">, leaving the right-hand <td> for the contents

<sigh/> We went through all of this just last month.

Using javascript for something as mission critical as site navigation is an
extremely bad business decision.

There are no *valid* statistics but it is estimated that somewhere between 7
and 15 % of viewers do not/can not support javascript, the reason being
immaterial. For them the site becomes unusable.

No search engine bots follow javascript script navigation. The site will
never be found.

One would be equally justified in telling the OP to turn his server off for
six weeks out of the year.

BTW you do not mention what should be in that .js file above. Surely not the
HTML menu

 

[aa]

Aha, ubiquitous rf! Glad to see you here! You are in your usual repertoire. Literally every phrase you coin here is worth writing on your tombstone. In the absence of a tombstone (let Allah prolong your working hours) I'll write them in blue.

<sigh/> We went through all of this just last month.

I was not here last month and missed the show. But dispite sighing you seem to enjoy chewing the same gum for second month. Just cannot pass by, can you?

Using JavaScript for something as mission critical as site navigation is an
extremely bad business decision.

It's your day today. Excellent joke! Please do not stop and keep talking. What would be a good business decision?

There are no *valid* statistics but it is estimated that somewhere between 7
and 15 % of viewers do not/can not support JavaScript, the reason being
immaterial. For them the site becomes unusable.

Where did you get this valuable statistics?

You actually intrigued me. How old are you? Sometimes I think you are preparing for university. But sometimes, like now, you sound like those old farts who in their better years were doing ARPANET but now have psychological difficulties parting with their black-and-white alpha-numeric displays and 2400 modems

Once you started talking about "business decisions", could I give you a bit of business primer? If someone builds a website to promote, say, computer games, he/she most probably should not care about visitors with last century computers. They will be just clogging the website. It is better to sacrifice 15% (this figure, wherever you dig it out from, is a delirium of a drunk cobbler) of those who most probably do not order anything, in order to satisfy 85% of potential buyers.
With your purist attitude to confine the code to a minimal common denominator, you should forget about HTML tags and limit your website to plain texts.

No search engine bots follow JavaScript script navigation.

I beg you keep talking and tell us how you think search engines are working, and how, to your opinion, to get a good rating with them.

The site will > never be found

Shrugging my shoulders in bemusement !!?? For those newbies who might take rf seriously - THIS IS A JOKE! Just go to Google and see how many sites with JavaScript menus will show up at the top.

One would be equally justified in telling the OP to turn his server off for
six weeks out of the year

Why just for six weeks out of the year? Are you saying that that those 200 browsers which do not support JavaScript, actually do not support it six weeks out of the year and the rest 46 weeks they are OK with JavaScript menus?

BTW you do not mention what should be in that .js file above. Surely not the

HTML menu

Tell me honestly, rf, have you yourself understood what you've just said? If you di not understand what should be in that .js file
just have a guess. Will three attempts be sufficient to you to get the right answer?

BTW, in the "drop down menu" thread you declared you could write a good menu using "pure HTML" (although you did not understand what "pure HTML" is). I asked you go ahead and produce a specimen - what is your progress with that? Do you need any help? If so, just post a question.

Look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

 

[rf]

aa wrote:

<quote>
You actually intrigued me. How old are you? Sometimes I think you are
preparing for university. But sometimes, like now, you sound like those old
farts who in their better years were doing ARPANET but now have
psychological difficulties parting with their black-and-white alpha-numeric
displays and 2400 modems
</quote>

When I started in IT (then known as DP) there *were* no alphanumeric
displays. Of any description. There *were* no modems, of any description.

BTW please fix your newsreader to wrap correctly and do not post multipart
HTML to a text only newsgroup.

 

[Jan Jablunka]

Gregor Traven napsal(a):

Hi

I'm currently using three frames on my site. The left one is the one with
the navbar and the right one is the one which displays content. Basically,
when I push one of the buttons on my navbar, one of the pages opens in right
frame.
Links that are applied to this buttons can only open pages by defining the
Target (_blank or _parent or _self or _top or mainFrame or topFrame or
leftFrame) which is basically another frame. Now I want to rebuild this site
so that there would be no frames but a single page.

My question is how can I open my content (pages) on the right to my navbar
without using frames? Can I do something using the Target property? For
example instead of "_blank" I could define a certain area on the right of
the navbar and then pages would open in that area.

Thanks for the answers

Gregor

Yes, there is a way. Create a document including all the "content" and
use javascript which will change the <div>'s CSS "display" property when
pressing the link in your navbar.
Actually, this is a REALLY stupid idea.
The second way is to use <iframe> tag to include another document into
your page, but that's much more stupid, because the "content" actually
ISN'T the content of the page (URI, respectively) viewing and the only
way of getting the REAL content is to view the source and paste the URI
of this iframe.
What about redesigning your website totally and using some little
dynamic scripting? This would help you keep the same menu on all pages
and changing just the content.

Sjon.

 

[Neal]

Yes, there is a way. Create a document including all the "content" and
use javascript which will change the <div>'s CSS "display" property when
pressing the link in your navbar.
Actually, this is a REALLY stupid idea.
Yep.

The second way is to use <iframe> tag to include another document into
your page, but that's much more stupid, because the "content" actually
ISN'T the content of the page (URI, respectively) viewing and the only
way of getting the REAL content is to view the source and paste the URI
of this iframe.

Oh my.

What about redesigning your website totally and using some little
dynamic scripting? This would help you keep the same menu on all pages
and changing just the content.

Do you possess even one clue? Sorry, but these suggestions are miles away
from even remotely helpful.

Did you read my post? A little?

 

[Gregor Traven]

Hi

Sorry guys but i have no clue who's talking to who in this post that I
started. The only response that made any sense to me was the one from Jan
Jablunka, and if I want to help myself I need to know what he meant by using
some dynamic scripting.

Gregor

 

[Neal]

Hi

Sorry guys but i have no clue who's talking to who in this post that I
started.

Apologies, I was certain I had posted. May have gotten lost.

brucie suggested reading
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Include_one_file_in_another and I agree.

The only response that made any sense to me was the one from Jan
Jablunka, and if I want to help myself I need to know what he meant by
using
some dynamic scripting.

Doubt that is necessary. Check the above link.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Who would need that many modems?

 

[Neal]

Who would need that many modems?

Misys Healthcare Systems?

http://dir.jayde.com/profile10108653-midas-kapiti.html

 

[aa]

BTW please fix your newsreader to wrap correctly and do not post multipart HTML to a text only newsgroup.

Look, rf, this is an HTML group and HTML is designed to improve presentation of information.
Why should one sacrifice readability of the text in order to comply with the rules written when a 2400 kbs modem was considered a luxury?

Why instead of hightliting your comments in a different color, I should resort to these ugly inderlining?

It made sense 20 years ago when there were just text data. But now an average web-page has graphics and FLASH for half a meg, but you, like old grunny, are afraid that downloading several tags will destroy your budget. Are you on welfare?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Misys Healthcare Systems?
http://dir.jayde.com/profile10108653-midas-kapiti.html

Great. Now I can free up some space in my big cupboard at work. How much
do you think they'd pay per modem?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

aa wrote:

[rf said - attribute was snipped]

Look, rf, this is an HTML group

No, it is a text only group for /discussing/ HTML.

and HTML is designed to improve presentation of information. Why
should one sacrifice readability of the text in order to comply
with the rules written when a 2400 kbs modem was considered a
luxury?

Readability of your post:

<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Look, rf, this is an HTML group and =
HTML is=20
designed to improve presentation of information.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why should&nbsp;one sacrifice =
readability of the=20
text in order to comply with the rules written when a 2400 kbs modem was =

considered a luxury?&nbsp; <BR></FONT></DIV>

Yeah, that's easy to read...

brucie was right. You *are* a dickhead.

Why instead of hightliting your comments in a different color, I
should resort to these ugly inderlining?

My newsreader doesn't show your HTML posting unless I look at the
source of the message.

It made sense 20 years ago when there were just text data. But now
an average web-page has graphics and FLASH for half a meg, but you,
like old grunny, are afraid that downloading several tags will
destroy your budget. Are you on welfare?

It doesn't matter how much money he has. This is a text-only group. It
is not alt.binaries.html

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Look, rf, this is an HTML group and HTML is designed to improve
presentation of information.

HTML is designed to allow structuring of information, CSS is designed to
improve presentation of information. Get your facts straight.

Why should one sacrifice readability of the text in order to comply
with the rules written when a 2400 kbs modem was considered a luxury?

No one is advocating a sacrifice of readability. HTML email is *less*
readable

Why instead of hightliting your comments in a different color, I
should resort to these ugly inderlining?

What ugly underlining? My email client formats quotes (normal ones with
greater-than symbols) in a different color without you doing a thing.
And the beauty is that I can configure it to use a different color, put
a box around the quote, make the quote invisible -- all without you
sending me a different message.

 

[aa]

No, it is a text only group for /discussing/ HTML.

Who decided that and where it is fixed? Where Ian one read the terms and conditions of using this resource?

Readability of your post:

<DIV>...

Sorry, my message is not intended for those who use Notepad to read newsgroups. I think I am talking to people who do HTML for OE6 which mean my target audience have and use IE and OE.
Are you on an MS-DOS computer? If you can afford Windows, use OE - it is included with the installation disk.

brucie was right. You *are* a dickhead.

Many thanks. I eariler said that I take thinks like that from people like rf and his likes as a compliment.
Now I should append that name-list with brucie and your honorable self. And I feel this list is going to reach gigabyte size quickly.

My newsreader doesn't show your HTML posting unless I look at the
source of the message.

Good to know that. I do not need people like you neither read or reply my messages. That is why I keep posting in HTML

Take care

 

[aa]

HTML is designed to allow structuring of information, CSS is designed to

improve presentation of information. Get your facts straight.

Many newbies confuse HTML and XML simply because these two sound similar.
I think the creators should have given them more different names indeed.
It is XML which allows structuring of information.
HTML with CSS is a presentational tool

 

[Steve Pugh]

Many newbies confuse HTML and XML simply because these two sound similar.

True but not at all for the reasons you give.

I think the creators should have given them more different names indeed.

Yeah, and SGML and XHTML and VML and WML.

Hint, what does the ML stand for?

It is XML which allows structuring of information.

So, headings, paragraphs, lists and tables don't structure
information? Or maybe HTML doesn't have any of those things in it?

Or maybe you simply don't even have the tiniest clue as to how little
you actually know.

HTML with CSS is a presentational tool

CSS is a presentational tool.
HTML is a structural tool.

Steve