"In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</ i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)
MartinRineh...@gmail.com wrote: > They just don't get no respect.
You are not making sense.
> "In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web > applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly > against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</ > i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting > windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)
> Why?
Evidently, Flanagan rarely knows what he is talking about, if that. The choice of not using frames or iframes has nothing to do with scripting at all, as since the first day they were supported the `target' attribute of `a' elements was supported. It is a matter of accessibility and of CSS emerging about twelve years ago instead.
PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de> writes:
> MartinRineh...@gmail.com wrote: >> "In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web >> applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly >> against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</ >> i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting >> windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)
>> Why?
> Evidently, Flanagan rarely knows what he is talking about, if that. > The choice of not using frames or iframes has nothing to do with > scripting at all, as since the first day they were supported the > `target' attribute of `a' elements was supported. It is a matter of > accessibility and of CSS emerging about twelve years ago instead.
You're putting words in Flanagan's mouth. He's absolutely correct that frames are used a lot less than they used to be and he doesn't talk about scripting at all in that quote. But you're correct that the main reason they're not used that much anymore are the accessibility issues and CSS making inline scrolling elements possible.
Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl> writes: > You're putting words in Flanagan's mouth. He's absolutely correct that > frames are used a lot less than they used to be and he doesn't talk > about scripting at all in that quote.
I mean, he's not making any statement relating scripting to frames, he's just saying that at the time javascript became popular, frames were too.
Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?
I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested frames. I've been very pleased with the result. Would I have been smarter to use CSS instead of frames?
Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he deserve this?
I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?
Evidently, you hardly know what frames are, nor how to write HTML. You have declared HTML 4.01 Frameset and did not use a single `frameset' or `frame' element in the homepage tag soup^W^W document. In the document you are referring to you are placing invalid declarations for comments above the DOCTYPE declaration, triggering Quirks/Compatibility Mode. You are using CSS lengths in the value for the `rows' and `cols' attributes of `frameset' elements. And I could go on like this for hours.
(I really wonder which language standards committees you want to have served on anyway; hopefully nothing Web-related.)
> I've been very pleased with the result.
That must be because you have never tested it with different user agents and font sizes, for example. So your visitors, among them me, are not pleased at all. Remember: The worm must be tasty for the fish, not for the fisherman. But as the for the latter, you don't even make an average fisherman yet.
> Would I have been smarter to use CSS instead of [tables]?
Most definitely.
> Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he > deserve this?
Search the archives.
> I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search > crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and > isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?
MartinRineh...@gmail.com writes: > Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?
The basic problem is that it's hard to navigate frames (and see when frames are loaded with new content) when you've got a screen reader or some similar program (or a braille machine). "Normal" visual browsers show blocks of content in spatial relations, but browsers (or browser extensions) catering to blind people have a hard time to make frames easy to use, and it's in general best to have the document's structure reflect the way you'd want to read it from top to bottom (and frames subvert this by changing the overall content on the fly).
Not that javascript and/or iframes are much better in this regard. The main problem seems to be that replacing/switching parts of a page is a technique that's hard to make accessible to all users. Especially users that can only read about one line of text at a time. It may be better for those users to have a system that's based on "primitive" full-page reloads. Provided they can navigate quickly to the sections they're interested in (and leave out all the unnessary iframe / frame / div replacement / ajax stuff).
> I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested > frames. I've been very pleased with the result. Would I have been > smarter to use CSS instead of frames?
It would be nice if it worked with javascript disabled. Especially since it looks like most of the scripting does the equivalent of the <a target="..."> attribute.
> Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he > deserve this?
Flanagan's book is only the best book that handles most browser scripting. It's far from infallible, and contains some information that's IMO pretty misleading, when you get down to the details. But I think PointedEar's comment was uncalled for.
> I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search > crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and > isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?
Any search crawler worth its salt should handle frames. The main problem as I hinted above is accessibility for people with visual handicaps.
> Can someone elaborate on the accessibility issues?
> I've just done: http://ClintonBushCharts.org with extensive nested > frames. I've been very pleased with the result. Would I have been > smarter to use CSS instead of frames?
There's not a single frame on this page.
and - perhaps more important -
Where's the JS relevance?
> Flanagan is the single book recommended in the JS FAQ. Does[n't] he > deserve this?
Why should this be relevant for a pure markup question?
> I've also read that you should avoid frames as they "break" search > crawlers. As I see it, the issue is using JS v. using <a href...> and > isn't really related to frames. Am I missing something on this, too?
If you use frames you stop having "the global namespace" and you start having multiple global namespaces (which means the word "global" is, at best, somewhat misleading). Therefore, the question of use/non-use of frames has a critical impact on your JavaScript.
OFF TOPIC
I am one of a large class of people who wish to use the WWW to communicate with others but who are not, and do not aspire to be, professional web developers. W3C consistently ignores us.
On Jul 7, 4:00 pm, MartinRineh...@gmail.com wrote:
> To all my apologies for not starting this way:
> If you use frames you stop having "the global namespace"
The term 'namespace' has no technical meaning in javascript (it does not appear at all in the language's specification), and so there is no "the global namespace" as such.
(For those who would like to argue that the term 'namespace' is sufficiently unambiguously defined and used that it can be used in relation to javascript even if no specified meaning exists for javascript, consider how very different differing approaches to namespaces are (think XML namespaces)).
> and you start having multiple global namespaces
You start to have multiple global objects.
> (which means the > word "global" is, at best, somewhat misleading).
That probably depends on where you observe from.
> Therefore, the question of use/non-use of frames > has a critical impact on your JavaScript.
Certainly using frames can add a layer of complexity to scripts.
> OFF TOPIC
> I am one of a large class of people who wish to > use the WWW to communicate with others but who are > not, and do not aspire to be, professional web > developers. W3C consistently ignores us.
Does something make you think that the W3C pays any attention to people who are "professional web developers"?
If that were true then you would be in a position to demonstrate its truth. Otherwise nobody will be in a position to correct your misconceptions and you will then just be wasting bandwidth.
