One problem with frames is there's a lot of bad code for creating =
framesets.
I haven't run across many sites that use 100% correct syntax.  I found
frames to work perfectly as long as you write good code and make good =
use of
the target (_top, _parent,...) whatever.

I must say I haven't found but two serious problems with frames.
 - not all browsers support them
 - if your site show in the searchengines, and you have a subpage =
listed
there, you'll miss out on the frames.  That's why I now generally put =
some
link on each and every page to get to the entry page.  For example
http://www.fiatcoupe.f2s.com where frames are extensively used.  And by =
the
way... the code is full of bad stuff too, but as far as my philosophy =
was at
that time: better to code cross-browser compliant than to code
future-browser-compliant.  Should work without too much noticeable =
glitches
in IE, NS and MZ (all versions starting from 4).

Well anyway, guess it's a matter of taste.  I happen to love frames for =
the
fact they offer very nice possibilities for navigation, together with =
the
ease of changing navigation things.  As long as you make sure you're
developing your pages for a small enough screen res and the such.  Ah, =
well
you know what I mean.  Good coding practice should go hand in hand with =
good
design practice.


Kayjey



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
[mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]Namens Larry Coats
Verzonden: dinsdag 24 april 2001 18:11
Aan: St=E9phane Bergeron
CC: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
Onderwerp: Re: navigation bars-absent on newer version of Netscape




St=E9phane Bergeron wrote:

> That's not entirely true.  Indeed, both IE 4 and NN 4 came out months
> before the HTML 4.0 spec came out and years before the DOM did but =
the CSS
> Level 1 spec came out in late 1996, months before either browsers =
were
> released.  That's why NN 4's abysmal CSS implementation is so
> frustrating.  Netscape were arrogant enough to think they could =
bypass the
> W3C and do things their way once again.  That was their demise as =
later
> history proved.

Hmmm. The memory is the first to go. I could have sworn that the CSS
standard
came after HTML 4.0. But that's what I get for talking off the top of =
my
head.

Netscape did rush NN4. Things were moving pretty quickly about then, =
and I
suppose they wanted to beat IE 4 to the punch. Like you say, Microsoft
ditched
IE 3 and started fresh with IE 4, while Netscape built on the NN3 =
engine.
While
NN4's CSS support was far better than IE 3's, NN3's engine just wasn't
designed
for CSS, and they only implemented those portions of CSS that they =
could
make
fit.

I have to disagree, though, that poor support for CSS was the reason =
for
their
demise. Joe User out there doesn't care about that. Microsoft won the =
war by
ensuring that IE was installed on all of the PCs being sold. There's =
little
reason for most users to bother looking for any other browser - IE is =
"good
enough."

> Microsoft at the time did the smart thing instead and ditched the old
buggy
> IE 3 engine and built IE 4 from scratch throwing in both innovative =
and
new
> features and very good (if not perfect) support for existing =
standards of
> the time, including CSS 1 and CSS P.  Every browser they released =
since
has
> improved on that standards support.  During that time, Netscape =
released
21
> (yes 21!) incremental "updates" to their 4.x generation browser =
without
> improving its core engine one iota and without fixing even its most
glaring
> CSS bugs or other bugs.  That coupled with the Mozilla project taking =
well
> over 3 years to release a final version of Mozilla means that we =
still
have
> to support the very outdated and extremely buggy NN 4.x because many
people
> still hold on to it for some reason.  That also means that when =
Netscape
> finally releases a non-beta version of Netscape 6, all existing =
standards
> including CSS 1 and 2, HTML 4.0 and 4.01, XHTML 1 and 1.1 and the DOM =
will
> all be many months to several years old.  In this case it's not the =
W3C
who
> will have been the followers it's the browsers who have been lagging
behind
> and in NN 6's case it might even be too late for it to gain wide
acceptance
> amongst the general public.  In any case, only time will tell.

Yes, it's very frustrating that Netscape has released all of these =
updates
to
NN4 without addressing many of the core problems. They've made some =
very big
changes - the introduction of JavaScript 1.3 in 4.06 and of JavaScript =
1.4
in
4.5 and the addition of PNG support in 4.04, for example - while doing
nothing
to improve support for HTML and CSS. Not the choices I would have made!

And yes, it's taken forever for NN6 to arrive. Making Gecko an open =
project
slowed things down a lot, as did the buyout by AOL and the loss of a =
large
portion of the Netscape team.

In my earlier post, I said that traditionally the W3C had been =
followers and
based the standards on things that the software companies had already
released.
I forgot to follow up on that thought. It seems as if they're trying to
reverse
that role. With XHTML, the W3C seems to be trying to take the lead. It
remains
to be seen how successful that's going to be. I can't say that I'm 100%
enthused with the choices they're making. For example, I'm not at all
pleased
that they want to dump support for frames. Frames have disadvantages, I
won't
argue that, but they are very useful at the same time. Instead of just
throwing
them away, I wish they'd instead address the problems with them and fix
them.
Or develop some new method that provides some or all of the =
capabilities of
frames without the bad side effects.

Larry Coats

=20

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

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