 | |
Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus
HTML Writing HTML for the Web (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus -
04-24-2008
, 01:49 PM
|
maybe a pages are too simple to solve it in other way then frames. |
Quote:
|
frameset cols = "25%,*" frame src ="menu.htm" / frame src ="content.htm" / /frameset |
you'll need multiple frameset documents. And watch out for orphaned content
pages. And all your menu documents (and possibly some of your content
documents) will need to target their links. And so on.
Quote:
|
vs ?php include_once('menu.htm'); ? div id="content" p>This page's content.... |
will also need a style sheet, but the markup for that can be put in a
common include file.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew (AT) stanfordalumni (DOT) org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin (AT) htmlhelp (DOT) com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"Warning: Dates in the calendar are closer than they appear."
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
Petr Vileta wrote: Bergamot wrote: If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions? Maybe my English is too bad but I don't understand what you wanted to say. Sorry. "Shoot yourself in the foot" means you are doing something bad to yourself. The point is that this is a discussion group, not a help desk. If somebody posts a question about how to do something that we consider a bad practice, most of the regular posters here would rather tell them why it is bad and show them better solutions instead of giving the answer they wanted to hear. Somebody asked a solution for frame style pages and I wrote my ideas. We don't want to encourage frames. There are almost always better ways to do whatever the poster wants to do. |
frames. You think so because of a hysterical view of the matter (that it
is like advising someone how best to shoot oneself in the foot but not
to do too much damage).
And the other bit is particularly weak, there are always better ways to
do most things.
--
dorayme
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
dorayme wrote: I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps the menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply say use includes and walk away! That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you do not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you wish with CSS and position: fixed. |
Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing about
frames or helping someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging them or
backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of the wrong
stick.
If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball. It plays ball with
frames. Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.
Bottom line is that you and others refuse to acknowledge the simple
advantages of frames, the cross browser support hitherto.
I will say it again, folk should not get hysterical when a few odd folk
come along here wanting to maintain and improve their frames site. Let
them have them. Worry when there is a threat of an epidemic. It is
hysterical over-reaction to talk as if this threat was real every time
someone comes along about frames.
--
dorayme
#34
| |||
| |||
|
|
And the other bit is particularly weak, there are always better ways to do most things. |
actually works.
--
Richard
Killing all threads involving google groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
#35
| |||
| |||
|
|
If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball. |
Quote:
|
It plays ball with frames. |
page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.
Quote:
|
Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames. |
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
#36
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <d3ada$481087a3$40cba7d0$14062 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote: dorayme wrote: I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps the menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply say use includes and walk away! That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you do not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you wish with CSS and position: fixed. Actually, no one except you is going into tired old arguments. You and Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing about frames or helping someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging them or backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of the wrong stick. Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames. |
Here are a couple of the many ways:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/fixed.html
http://www.nowcss.com/javascript/emu...-in-ie-6-below
--
Richard
Killing all threads involving google groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
#37
| |||
| |||
|
|
In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that actually works. |
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.
--
dorayme
#38
| |||
| |||
|
|
dorayme wrote: If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball. No, but it does degrade gracefully. It plays ball with frames. For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws. Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames. What jerking? |
"Apart from the obvious inefficient use of screen space, fixed elements
or backgrounds can make scrolling slow and jerky, especially when using
the keyboard. I've got my keyboard repeat delay set to the minimum and
the repeat rate set to the maximum, the movement occurs in smaller steps
and in a higher frequency compared to scrolling with the mouse wheel or
dragging a scrollbar, this emphasizes the problem."
Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>
--
dorayme
#39
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <Bv9Qj.4722$ko5.1846 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>, rf <rf@x.invalid> wrote: In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that actually works. In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some chimera. |
Search engine bots do not work *perfectly* well.
I would rather have pages that are found correctly in the search engines
and which my viewers can return to easily when they wish. Framed pages
don't support either.
Here is a random page from one of the eighteen million pages out there that
contain the phrase "your browser does not support frames":
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornit...ibit/title.htm
Where is their navigation?
--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
#40
| |||
| |||
|
|
dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote in news:doraymeRidThis-912165.10224325042008 (AT) news-vip (DOT) optusnet.com.au: In article <d3ada$481087a3$40cba7d0$14062 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM>, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote: dorayme wrote: I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps the menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply say use includes and walk away! That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you do not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you wish with CSS and position: fixed. Actually, no one except you is going into tired old arguments. You and Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing about frames or helping someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging them or backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of the wrong stick. Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames. IE6 does not "jerk" when simulating position: fixed, if you do it right. Here are a couple of the many ways: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/fixed.html http://www.nowcss.com/javascript/emu...-in-ie-6-below |
supplying these urls...
(btw, this is a side issue to the main one, this being this
determination of everyone here to commit framicide. Perfect and better
alterntaive technologies do not justify the elimination of every single
use of frames. No more than that mother should throw out her first born
because the second is better in all particular respects.
You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.
--
dorayme
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.