substitute for frames

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Gregor Traven, Oct 11, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Gregor Traven, Oct 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gregor Traven

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Gregor Traven wrote:
    > 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)

    --
    Nico
    www.nicoschuyt.nl
     
    Nico Schuyt, Oct 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gregor Traven

    brucie Guest

    In alt.html Gregor Traven said:

    > Hi


    g'day

    > I'm currently using three frames on my site.


    <pelts gregor with bulbs of garlic/>

    > 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

    --


    v o i c e s
     
    brucie, Oct 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Gregor Traven

    aa Guest

    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


    "Gregor Traven" <> wrote in message
    news:ckeoe4$gh1$...
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    aa, Oct 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Gregor Traven

    rf Guest

    aa wrote:

    > 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 :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Oct 12, 2004
    #5
  6. Gregor Traven

    aa Guest

    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
     
    aa, Oct 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Gregor Traven

    rf Guest

    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.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Oct 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Gregor Traven

    Jan Jablunka Guest

    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.
     
    Jan Jablunka, Oct 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Gregor Traven

    Neal Guest

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:12:40 +0200, Jan Jablunka <>
    wrote:

    > 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?
     
    Neal, Oct 13, 2004
    #9
  10. 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" <> je napisal v sporocilo
    news:eek: ...
    > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:12:40 +0200, Jan Jablunka <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > 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, Oct 13, 2004
    #10
  11. Gregor Traven

    Neal Guest

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:50:36 +0200, Gregor Traven
    <> wrote:

    > 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.
     
    Neal, Oct 13, 2004
    #11
  12. Gregor Traven

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Toby Inkster, Oct 13, 2004
    #12
  13. Gregor Traven

    Neal Guest

    Neal, Oct 13, 2004
    #13
  14. Gregor Traven

    aa Guest

    > 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?
     
    aa, Oct 13, 2004
    #14
  15. Gregor Traven

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Neal wrote:

    > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:53:43 +0100, Toby Inkster
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> aa wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 2400 modems

    >>
    >> Who would need that many modems?

    >
    > 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?

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Oct 13, 2004
    #15
  16. aa wrote:

    [rf said - attribute was snipped]
    >> 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


    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:
    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

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 14, 2004
    #16
  17. aa wrote:
    >> 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.


    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.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Oct 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Gregor Traven

    aa Guest

    > 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:
    >
     
    aa, Oct 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Gregor Traven

    aa Guest

    > 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
     
    aa, Oct 14, 2004
    #19
  20. Gregor Traven

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:47:06 +0100, "aa" <> wrote:

    >> 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.


    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
     
    Steve Pugh, Oct 14, 2004
    #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. Powerslave2112

    From Frames to no frames?

    Powerslave2112, Jan 20, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    627
    brucie
    Jan 20, 2004
  2. Philip
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    999
    Karl Groves
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Ale

    Frames or not Frames...

    Ale, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    988
    Adrienne
    Aug 5, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,027
    dorayme
    Feb 10, 2006
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,216
Loading...

Share This Page