Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

Chris Josephs (cpj1@mixer.visi.com)
Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:34:24 -0500 (CDT)


Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:34:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chris Josephs <cpj1@mixer.visi.com>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199609041959.MAA24850@server.livingston.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.960906222204.23424B-100000@mixer.visi.com>

On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, MegaZone wrote:
> >Don't forget that there will always be browsers that do not support frames,
> >and to these browsers the same document must contain the same amount of
> 
> Yeah, and they are less than 10% of the browser market.  Look at the web
> today, how many Frames authors give a shit about them?  Almost none.  And
> those that do can use NOFRAMES or link to a non-framed version of the site.
> Your proposal is, IMHO, a step backwards.
> 

I think the original poster (sorry, couldn't find a header) probably meant
not all user agents support frames (or maybe he just meant browsers...).
Think of it like this, if Lynx (or any other text browser) is fully
capable of reading a document without problems, it's much more likely more
capable of being indexed properly by an "Agent" than a document geared
towards one browser at a certain resolution and window size.

The one big disadvantage of a framed document (the current implementation)
is that it takes multiple server calls to complete the document fetching.
The CSS layout proposal avoids this by encapsulating everything in one
document with no designed loss of readability.  If necessary, you can have
outside files loaded to certain frames and set targets to specific frames.

Both methods of dividng documents into frames have their advantages and
disadvantages.  I'd like to think the author would have the option of
choosing the better method.

> -MZ

--- Christopher Josephes -------------------------
mailto:cpj1@visi.com               Vector Internet
http://www.visi.com/~cpj1