re: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>

> As for frames, you can deprecate them, hide them under your bed, put them away in
> the closet, or bury them in the end zone with Jimmy Hoffa, and I'll tell you what
> -- people are still going to use them. Maybe not everyone, but there is still a
> use for them.

True enough; I have indeed seen frames used well.  Not often, granted, but sometimes.
 
> Now, I think we can all agree that we've seen a misuse of frames. However, I am
> currently involved with one major media company and a start-up, and I have seen a
> genuine use for being able to affect one section of a page but not the others, and
> the best way to do that now is frames.

Again, true enough - at the moment.
 
> Perhaps there can be some style attribute that will allow the client to
> differentiate between static and dynamic elements of a page. Coming from a
> programming perspective, I can see how that is going to be extremely difficult.

IIRC, it's not a style solution.  Look at XLink; it should provide for this.  Combine a 
DIV that has a unique ID with one of XLink's new inclusion methods, and you really 
aren't far away from frames.  It's been a while since I looked at the specifics, but I do 
believe XLink lets you bring the contents of a link into the current page as a 
replacement for the contents of an ID'd element....

> If there is a better way and it is just not publicized, then by all means, share
> it with us... That is, the people who actually develop  using HTML instead of
> praying to an obscure section in a manual (that someone wrote for a trial run of a
> first of its kind language).

When XHTML finally gets going, and if XLink ever gets to Recommendation status, 
you'll have a real alternative to frames.  I'm really looking forward to the idea, myself.



 Rev. Robert L. Hood  | http://rev-bob.gotc.com/
  Get Off The Cross!  | http://www.gotc.com/

Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 23:23:42 UTC