St. escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message 
> news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...
>> St. escribi�:
>>>      Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't 
>>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
> 
>      Yes, I haven't spotted it for ages, but didn't some websites (say, when 
> doing a search), have tags like: "This website uses frames, please blah, 
> blah, blah" - or something like that?

Yes, those exist. They are the worst.

The "alternate content if frames aren't supported" (<noframes>) is 
supposed to be that: *alternate content*. Not a warning saying "your 
browser doesn't support frames, get one that does, or I won't show you 
anything useful". It should show the normal page contents, in a layout 
not requiring frames.

Although if they can make a layout that doesn't need frames, they might 
as well use it always and drop the frame-requiring one completely.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>>      Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't 
>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
> 
> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.

They still are only server-side possibility to maintain static 
navigational bar and loading only contents while surfing.

Yes, they are widely misused. But eg. when surfing with mobile 
connection (GPRS gives 56kbps with 1sec latences if the connection is 
good) I like them, because with them it's actually possible to reduce data.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message 
news:47e15fea$1@news.povray.org...

>> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in 
>> message news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...
>>> St. escribi?:
>>>>      Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't 
>>>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
>>
>>      Yes, I haven't spotted it for ages, but didn't some websites (say, 
>> when doing a search), have tags like: "This website uses frames, please 
>> blah, blah, blah" - or something like that?
>
> Yes, those exist. They are the worst.
>
> The "alternate content if frames aren't supported" (<noframes>) is 
> supposed to be that: *alternate content*. Not a warning saying "your 
> browser doesn't support frames, get one that does, or I won't show you 
> anything useful". It should show the normal page contents, in a layout not 
> requiring frames.

 Yes, that's the one! Seriously, I haven't seen that for ages and I used to 
see it probably every other day or two(?) (Or, I'm not looking in the bad 
places anymore). ;)

Maybe people have changed to something else as sinister in modern way now. 
What would that be if so?


>
> Although if they can make a layout that doesn't need frames, they might as 
> well use it always and drop the frame-requiring one completely.

     True. I think most probably have.

       ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e15c78@news.povray.org...
>
>
>    Heh, yeah, even though I haven't looked at your site for *ages*,

You haven't missed anything. I haven't changed a thing in a couple years.
Still working on the rewrite.

Post a reply to this message

"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message 
news:47e1679b@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e15c78@news.povray.org...
>>
>>
>>    Heh, yeah, even though I haven't looked at your site for *ages*,
>
> You haven't missed anything. I haven't changed a thing in a couple years.
> Still working on the rewrite.

   Yes, but Gail, you won't know this, but your site was the *first* site I 
viewed (just after I found povray.org) where someone was showing their 
PoV-Ray images. Without looking, I still remember a graveyard scene that you 
did. That was probably seven years ago now and that inspired me.  :)

  I can only say - thanks.  :)

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Heh, just found it. It was the Callendor series of images - top row, third 
one. That's the one that inspired me because I wondered how you did the 
yellow light.

   Time sure flies...

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e1753c@news.povray.org...
> Heh, just found it. It was the Callendor series of images - top row, third
> one. That's the one that inspired me because I wondered how you did the
> yellow light.
>
>    Time sure flies...

It does. That pic's at least 8 years old.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.

Depends what you use them for, really. What makes them evil?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

A good reason to use noscript in Firefox. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:58:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
>
> Depends what you use them for, really. What makes them evil?

The problem used to be that writers would use frames in the same style as  
Gail suggested - Navigation panel on the left, main page on the right;  
click on one, loads in the other and everything's sunny and the birds are  
singing. Now along comes Mr Search Engine and reads all those 'body' pages  
and offers them out to the big wide world. Somebody clicks on the result  
and is delivered the body page, except now they can't go anywhere else  
because none of the navigation was loaded; this ticks the reader off,  
which in turn annoys the company who paid for it.

Printing can also *still* be a hassle, likewise bookmarking, and different  
browsers treating frames in slightly different ways in terms of scrolling  
and sizes.

So the developer had a couple of options 1) not use frames; 2) include a  
link that would load up the page again with frames; 3) put all the same  
links contained in the navigation bar in the main page.

Now mix in server-side #includes which allows you to keep your navigation  
separate from the body, which is what a lot of frame were originally used  
for and you get the prevailing myth that frames are best avoided.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message