|
Posted by Jacques on July 11, 2005, 5:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options
I have been writing html/xhtml for nearly as long as I can remember. I
do not like frames and stopped using <frameset> a long time ago. But...
I have never used <iframe> for anything--never paid any attention to
browser support for the iframe element, nor to whatever arguments there
are for or against it.
Is there any consensus--at least here among subscribers to
c.i.w.a.html--over whether usr of the <iframe> tag is or was ever a good
idea? If it has been made obsolete (by css, or otherwise), was there
ever something to be said in favor of this element?
Thanks.
- Jacques
|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on July 11, 2005, 8:12 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>Is there any consensus--at least here among subscribers to
>c.i.w.a.html--over whether usr of the <iframe> tag is or was ever a good
>idea?
It's standard HTML with good widespread support. This makes it a useful
alternatives to JavaScript tasks.
You can gain some windowed scrolling (as for frames), without the
brokenness (mainly for bookmarking) of frames.
It's useful instead of SSI when you're integrating content from multiple
servers, such as including external ad content.
|
|
Posted by Darin McGrew on July 11, 2005, 7:37 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>> Is there any consensus--at least here among subscribers to
>> c.i.w.a.html--over whether usr of the <iframe> tag is or was ever a good
>> idea?
> You can gain some windowed scrolling (as for frames), without the
> brokenness (mainly for bookmarking) of frames.
Inline frames are just as broken as regular frames when it comes to
bookmarking, linking, printing, creating orphaned pages, etc.
> It's useful instead of SSI when you're integrating content from multiple
> servers, such as including external ad content.
Which makes disabling inline frames in your browser an effective way to
increase the signal-to-noise ratio...
Did someone mention the word consensus? :-)
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"It's easier to stay out than to get out." - Mark Twain
|
|
Posted by David Dorward on July 11, 2005, 8:37 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Andy Dingley wrote:
(iframe)
> It's standard HTML with good widespread support. This makes it a useful
> alternatives to JavaScript tasks.
Which JavaScript tasks?
> You can gain some windowed scrolling (as for frames), without the
> brokenness (mainly for bookmarking) of frames.
It has exactly the same brokenness as frames.
> It's useful instead of SSI when you're integrating content from multiple
> servers, such as including external ad content.
Well, if it makes it easier for me to block the adverts with my hosts file,
then that sounds good.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on July 11, 2005, 11:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:
>> It's standard HTML with good widespread support. This makes it a useful
>> alternatives to JavaScript tasks.
>
>Which JavaScript tasks?
The specific instance I was thinking of was in feeding external
commercial ads, where these are more sophisticated than the old banner
ad image + URL. If these were local then they'd be done by SSI, but as
they're supplied by 3rd party ad-brokers then they can't be. Ad
providers like DoubleClick, TangoZebra or even Google AdSense typically
use some varyingly complex chunk of JavaScript to build the ad content
dynamically on the page. Obviously this fails with JS turned off. An
IFrame is a somewhat cleaner interface to offer them.
>> You can gain some windowed scrolling (as for frames), without the
>> brokenness (mainly for bookmarking) of frames.
>It has exactly the same brokenness as frames.
IFrames (ignoring JavaScript tricks) don't have independent scrolling
from the page, as is commonly done with frames. Obviously this also
removes their usefulness for one of frame's most commonly used
functions, that of implementing shared menu bars without using SSI (as a
right-thinking developer ought)
You can bookmark framesets perfectly easily, the problem is that you can
only thus retrieve the default set of URLs for the constituent frames.
As IFrames don't navigate separately, this won't cause problems for
bookmarking them (or to distinguish from IE's kludge, the ability to
publish a URL, not just bookmark)
In a literal sense, your comment is true "[IFrames] have exactly the
same brokenness as frames." However if the OP reads the regular comments
here that "Frames are bad because they can't be bookmarked" (true
enough), it would be misleading for them to extend this real drawback
onto IFrames, because the context of that problem simply doesn't arise.
>> It's useful instead of SSI when you're integrating content from multiple
>> servers, such as including external ad content.
>Well, if it makes it easier for me to block the adverts with my hosts file,
>then that sounds good.
This is also a group for developers, not just web consumers.
I spent some of today configuring three sorts of garbage filter onto
Firefox, just so that I could read one of my own pages without risk of
epilepsy. Sometimes the job requires us to do what the client wants, not
what we'd prefer to be reading.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | good web host? | December 1, 2004, 8:21 pm |
| Need a good text | September 7, 2006, 1:01 am |
| Looking for a good FTP program | February 16, 2008, 9:14 am |
| What good is margin-bottom in IE? | November 3, 2004, 1:28 pm |
| Is it good to use absolute URLs? | November 4, 2004, 11:42 am |
| Have you heard the GOOD NEWS? | January 23, 2005, 4:38 pm |
| Could someone good to see the programming archtecture? | January 30, 2005, 8:47 am |
| Recommend a good tutorial? | August 22, 2006, 1:48 pm |
| Any good website software that allows | October 8, 2006, 11:49 am |
| Qualities of a good web designer | July 10, 2007, 7:17 am |
|