- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@exch1.rhul.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:53:55 +0000
- CC: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
I'm as opposed as Dave Woolley and many others to the /abuse/ of frames, but I still believe that their use is not /always/ as bad as he would have use believe. I can't lay my hands on my copy of "Raggett on HTML 4" as I write, but from memory I am reasonably confident that Dave Raggett had some pretty positive things to say about them... Philip TAYLOR, Webmaster, RHBNC, University of London -------- Dave J Woolley wrote: > > > From: Steve Doig [SMTP:Steve.Doig@shihad.zzn.com] > > > > Why should you move away from frames? - I thought thay were valid useful > > constructs. > > > [DJW:] Because CSS should be used instead. > > Because they are not in XHTML 1.1. > > Because they are in a part of HTML 4 reserved for > deprecated and stop gap features and have never been > in the preferred version of any W3C specfication. > > Because they make creation of a web++ difficult because > you can't deep link to a frame combination and can't even > reliably deep link to a single frame (often it will simply > script itself to the home page). > > Because you cannot see page titles or URIs on fully frame > capable browsers, encouraging badly titled frames. > > Because they encourage people to create sites that > don't degrade gracefully to older browsers, text only > browser, and, to some extent TV browsers. > > ++ in the sense intended in "the World Wide Web", not in the > sense used by Front Page. >
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 07:54:03 UTC