hwg-theory archives Oct 1998 new search results previous next

Re: Mr. Wilson's Rotolok Example

by Ryan Fischer <fischer(at)email.unc.edu>

 Date:  Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:58:40 -0500
 To:  MIchael Channing wilson <webmaster(at)lucidmind.com>
 Cc:  Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg(at)idyllmtn.com>, hwg-theory(at)hwg.org
 References:  idyllmtn unc
  todo: View Thread, Original 
At 06:39 PM 10/11/98 -0400, MIchael Channing wilson wrote:
>Right, except for the fact that my client did not want frames on the
>site. I would also have had to increase the price of the site due to the
>extra work involved in creating a non frames version

Not with the proper use of SSI and some creative CGI scripting (which,
incidentally, I'm sure I could produce).

>that would still
>not look the way he wanted in at the very least his browser of choice.
>This was not a valid option and was dismissed from the beginning of the
>project.

That's understandable.

>Ryan Fischer wrote:
>
>> Alright (/me SINGS "I'm gonna get to braaaa-aag!")
>
>Not just yet coolness...lol

Just wait... <g>

>> As much as I *hate* hacks like this, "you asked for it!"
>> 
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Frameset//EN">
>> <!-- This is Rotolok's index.html file! -->
>> <TITLE>Rotolok</TITLE>
>> <FRAMESET ROWS="100%, *">
>> <FRAME SRC="main.html" MARGINWIDTH=0 MARGINHEIGHT=0 FRAMEBORDER=0 BORDER=0>
>
>MARGINWIDTH=0 MARGINHEIGHT=0 are also invalid in HTML 4.0 Transitional,

No, they aren't:

	http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#edef-FRAMESET

>which was the whole point to start with. I suggested that I could
>achieve the look my client was seeking, in IE and NN, with the use of
>these attributes, which are invalid yet pose no real problem for any
>other browser that I know of. There will simply be a margin in some
>browsers, and that's that.

Exactly!

>My question was and still is; Can the "Look" of the site be kept as is,
>(this means no frames Ryan!)

Hey, I hate frames as much as the next red-blooded purist, but it's an option.

>at least for NN and IE, without the use of
>CSS and be made to validate. So far no one has done it.

You have. BTW, did you see my post on -standards WRT Harold Driscoll's
"HTML 4.0 Slang DTD" post?  That might be some food for thought.

>I can't say for sure that it can't be done,

I can say that: "It can't be done."  Besides, that's not what HTML is for.
You've used the Is/Isn't trick well, and because you're working for a
client, you have to produce what said client wants as well as you can.  I
advocate always validating a site because it's so easy, but in the cases
where that is *understandably* impossible to validate a site to any
possible DTD, it's OK to leave a few gracefully-degrading errors.  It is,
however, irresponsible to leave out !DOCTYPE declarations and not even try
to validate a site.  That is of utmost importance, especially when quality
is concerned.

>however I would never have spent as much
>time off the clock as we have here trying to make it happen. The minor
>validation errors are not worth the effort or the time.

I would argue against that, but it's been discussed too much.  Besides I
account for that to some extent earlier in this post.

>Anyone else want to take a shot at it?
>http://www.rotolok.com

Nah, from the info given, it seems you've fulfilled your duty to your
client.  (Picky clients... always thinking the web is print when it's not!
Annoying, ain't it?)

-- 
 -Ryan Fischer <fischer(at)email.unc.edu> ICQ UIN - 595003

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA