>> Frames are not recognised in HTML 4.01 (AFAIR)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> My USENET server carries the comp.infosystems.www hierarchy, but not
> comp.infosystems.www.html, it seems.
That's because he misspelled comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html .
> Can you tell me what those reasons may be? I find the "navigation frame
> + main content frame" to be a pretty common, and as far as I can tell,
> relatively problem free design. I'm aware that some browsers (e.g. lynx)
> may have problem rendering frames, but they degrade relatively
> elegantly.
Because they're an extremely leaky abstraction of templates.
- If you arrive at the content part of a frameset without the frameset
(eg., from a search engine hit), you cannot navigate the site. Working
around this requires scripting, which is less than optimal.
- If you find a page within a frameset that you're interested in, and you
bookmark it, when you load the bookmark odds are good you'll arrive
back at the beginning of the frameset.
- They break URLs. A single URL should point to a single resource, but a
frameset's URL refers to a series of resources (one for every page you
navigate to within the frameset, not "one for every frame").
Oliver Wong - 27 Apr 2006 17:23 GMT
>> Can you tell me what those reasons
[that frames are bad]
>> may be? I find the "navigation frame
>> + main content frame" to be a pretty common, and as far as I can tell,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> (eg., from a search engine hit), you cannot navigate the site. Working
> around this requires scripting, which is less than optimal.
Usually what is done is that each page in the "content frame" either has
something you can click on to take you to the top level document (see the
"frames" and "no frames" link in generated JavaDocs, for example), or each
page in the content frame will contain navigational links as well (e.g. for
sequential content, the navigational frame will act as a table of contents,
with the links in the content frames will be "forward one page" or
"backwards one page").
> - If you find a page within a frameset that you're interested in, and you
> bookmark it, when you load the bookmark odds are good you'll arrive
> back at the beginning of the frameset.
Depends on the browser implementation. I believe FireFox stores the
state of each frame when bookmarked.
> - They break URLs. A single URL should point to a single resource, but a
> frameset's URL refers to a series of resources (one for every page you
> navigate to within the frameset, not "one for every frame").
This is the strongest argument against frames, in my opinion, and I
concede there isn't much you can do about this if you use frames.
- Oliver
andrewthommo@gmail.com - 02 May 2006 08:15 GMT
> > <andrewthommo@gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> >> Frames are not recognised in HTML 4.01 (AFAIR)
> >>
> >> They are discourage for any number of reasons..
...
> > Can you tell me what those reasons may be?
...
> Because they're an extremely leaky abstraction of templates.
(trim further reasons)
Whew! Glad you provided such a good answer.
I forgot all the problems with frames as soon as I stopped
(mostly*) using them.
* I still use them for some CD based projects that are
impractical otherwise.
Andrew T.