- From: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@chello.se>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:43:24 +0100
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
W. Jeffrey Rankin:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
> > I'm no friend of frames, quite the opposite, but it is
> > illogical and a waste of resources to load the same stuff
> > again and again. If just a certain part of a page is to change,
> > it is reasonable to keep all other parts on the screen, instead of
> > throwing them out and then reload and redisplay them in exactly
> > the same way.
> It's been my experience that the navigational elements that are typically
> "framed" are minimal in terms of bytes, so I'll usually have elements
> like these in some sort of include file that in parsed into the HTML when
> the page is served. Usually the content part, whatever that is, is the
> most demanding in terms of bytes/resources etc. so it's not much of an
> additional load to put the navigation in every page.
But sometimes the static parts can be larger. And not everyone can
use server side processing of the pages. So sometimes the arguments for
using frames can be quite strong.
> The problems inherent in frames, for the developer and the end-user, far
> outweigh any benefits they may offer.
I agree.
#####################################################################
Bertilo Wennergren
<http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
<bertilow@chello.se>
#####################################################################
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 16:43:08 UTC