- From: Dosuchin <gohankid77@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:19:46 -0600
- To: Corl <corl@earthlink.net>
- Cc: w3c <www-html-editor@w3.org>
It is true that frames have a poor reputation because of how user agents implemented them, but there has been a recent discussion about the use of includes versus XFrames being implemented in XHTML2 [1]. In this way, the problems of frames would be eliminated because the includes would be a part of the content itself. This would still keep the content separate from the presentation. Simply put, frames are a bad idea in many cases. User agents implement them properly, but the problem lies in the design of frames. Frames are designed to separate one page from another. Includes are designed to contain one page within the content of another, not separate them. This is why server-side includes have gained popularity. [1] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Nov/0069.html
Received on Sunday, 21 November 2004 21:20:18 UTC