Viewing Thread:
"Sorry gang, but I've got no choice."

I'm going to have to use frames on my next job. The company it's for approved (and paid a stupid amount of money for, not to me) some artwork, and the only way it can be done exactly as they want it is with frames. Should be OK, as long as no-one uses Netscape...

Tyla wrote:

>
> Head hurts now...

You aint the only one, that was some techno babble I cant get my head around

cjh wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> I was hoping for a bit more explanation than that. ;)
>
> You could easily do that with a single xHTML page and CSS, but you
> would have to download all that content per page (which I think you
> said you wouldn't want). The only way I can think of doing that
> otherwise is with JavaScript, having it write the navigation list to
> the page on the fly. If the navigation code were in a JS file, you
> wouldn't have to download all those links each time, but of course
> would render any non-JS device out in the cold.

Slightly missed the point of using CSS + xHTML instead of frames...

Loading...

With Frames/Html using tables, a page cannot render until the final has been inturpreted in the browser. Doing this with 3 seperate files on the same bandwidth slows things down and delays the delivery of the content.

CSS allows you to deliver content almost immediately as the html is using basic symantic mark up with no structure other than

, list formatting will load almost instantaenously giving the user imediate access. Slightly behind that, the CSS loads and caches to the browser applying the rendering as it "cascades"

I think I said the overall file size for that total page was 1403bytes, you could reduce that buy at least 40% using very basic CSS and structured mark up at the same time reducing it to 1 Page of code.

Going a step further, the initail page could simply consist of 3 DIVS and 3 includes having the server do most of the processing power before even getting to you.

As for simple implementation (off top of head, slightly stoned and it's 00:15)

Content Content Content Content Content Content...

Head hurts now...

FWIW, successful site now using CSS delivery instead of tables and frames are:

http://espn.go.com/ (First large scale site to go pure css/xhtml)
http://www.ebuyer.co.uk
http://www.yahoo.com (might be live now)

Garin wrote:
> I was hoping for a bit more explanation than that. ;)

You could easily do that with a single xHTML page and CSS, but you would have to download all that content per page (which I think you said you wouldn't want). The only way I can think of doing that otherwise is with JavaScript, having it write the navigation list to the page on the fly. If the navigation code were in a JS file, you wouldn't have to download all those links each time, but of course would render any non-JS device out in the cold.

Tyla wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> The question was, can you replicate the functionality without using
> frames.
>
> Yes

I was hoping for a bit more explanation than that. ;)

Tyla wrote:
> On the other hand, xHTML 2.0 is totally new and not backwards compatible.

Won't that be fun when IE get their hands on it, implement it wrong and win over the market once again :)

> styling attributes have been dropped such as middle, center etc.

Do you mean the CSS properties or the likes of align="center" and valign="top"?

> MENU has been added

Isn't that part of HTML at the moment? How come they ditched it from xHTML 1.0?

From what I gather 's gone too, in favour of allowing the href="#" within any other element?

Garin wrote:
> The question was, can you replicate the functionality without using
> frames.

Yes

I hate frame's in general.

The reason why is because I think they look messy with scroll bars all over the place, and most content cannot be read without scrolling down/up.

Gets annoying and attracts attention away from the enjoyment of browsing.

Tyla wrote:
> ...In general, anything open to full public domain shouldn't be using
> frames now wether FRAMESET or iFRAME.

Perhaps you had better tell that to the BBC: [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/[/URL]
If iFRAMEs are good enough for the BBC then they're good enough for me!
Well I did pinch the iFRAME ticker for one of my sites...

Tyla wrote:
> Both of those are aimed at a specific market where you can include
> requirements for access. The Java one can be done in CSS very
> quickly, the main page is only 1403bytes so no issue on file size
> either.
>
> As for MSDN, it's desiged by M$ for MS users and therefore uses a lot
> of MS propriatory code. Again, they know the target audience and
> assume your using IE to access MSDN.
>
> In general, anything open to full public domain shouldn't be using
> frames now wether FRAMESET or iFRAME.

Thats not really answering the question. The contention of this thread was, there was no need for frames anymore. I accept that the 2 sites I mentioned are specialist and only of interest to specific users. But thats not really relevant.
The question was, can you replicate the functionality without using frames.

monkey_man wrote:
> Oh, it;s as simple as this:
>
>
>
>
> Muuuuuh, I know better know.