Re: Wrong approach towards Frames (was: New tags...)

Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:01:42 -0800 (PST)


Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:01:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@w3.org>
cc: HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Wrong approach towards Frames (was: New tags...)
In-Reply-To: <3300F38E.2303@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970211145453.30348C-100000@ns.viet.net>

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

> Benjamin Franz wrote:
> ...
> > 
> > You are working too hard - named anchors and a bit of white space.
> > are all you really need.
> > 
> 
> Well, I'll be happy to know more about that. I have the same experience
> as Stephanos one. For instance, frames work fine for documents with a
> single TOC. But if you want to have "sub tocs" then things get really
> messy.

Build a single HTML document with your multiple TOCs at the bottom,
seperated by <pre>{about 100 blank lines for paranoia's sake}</pre> and
put named anchors at the top of each TOC/section. You can access the
sub-TOCs/sections with named anchor HREFs from the frame. This greatly
simplifies the problem and allows you to chunk up a single document into
the frames. As I have said before, this seems also to be a situation where
multiple named <HTML> sections would be the perfect solutions.

A bit of a kludge? Yes. But it will work with Netscape frames and is not
real complex.

-- 
Benjamin Franz