Re: Wrong approach towards Frames (was: New tags...)
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
> WHY on Earth does ANYBODY think <BANNER> isn't well thought out, or to put
> it another way, that it's not a good solution?
> Take a look at any site using frames today. They are used for VERY specific
> purposes: Creating "navigation bars" (i.e. top-level ToCs) and presenting
> logos, copuright notices etc. That is, frames are simply a part of the
> document that doesn't scroll. Nobody uses them for anything else!
Here frames are used to isolate the automated updating of the chat display
from the message entry form so the automated update doesn't cut-off
There *are* other uses. I can think of at least two additional seperate
uses where content isolated frames are the *right* solution: Web page
commentary and Meta-website submission validation and review.
> What's the main drawback of Netscape's implementation? Each frame contains a
> seperate document, hence a link can only be followed in one frame at a time.
> What do people do to counter this? They use platform- and browser-dependant
> scripting languages to change more than one frame at a time (i.e. to make
> the "Next" button point to the next section or the icon representing the
> document you're viewing be highlighted). But ALL frame-enabled pages revolve
> around one main frame where the document is displayed, which usually
> scrolls, and one or more "supporting" frames which display static
Untrue. By linking to other frame documents you can change *all* the
visible frames at once. And you are making a sweeping generalization that
is easily disproved.
> Netscape's structure is based on the philosophy that many equivalent
> documents are displayed simultaneously. That's the problem with this
> solution, and a CSS-based solution that was proposed a while back by Bos,
> Raggett and Lie called "Frame-based layout via Style Sheets" . It
> approaches the problem from the wrong angle.
>  http://www.w3.org/WWW/TR/NOTE-layout.html
> <BANNER> puts all frames in ONE document. This is good because frames are
> really just "satellites" around the main document, thus they update with
> every new document, and they can be displayed inline if the user agent
> doesn't know about BANNER. This does not really waste any appreciable
> bandwidth, it only takes less time and effort for the document author to get
> the desired result.
If that is what you want. For some problems divying up a single document
into chunks is inadequate. Content *isolation* is needed. And you *could*
do what you want with Netscape's frames as well. Think about it for awhile
and I am sure you will discover how to put different pieces of the same
document into frames - it isn't hard.