PDA

View Full Version : Do you still use frames in HTML?

Sumo
17-01-2004, 12:53 PM
I was thinking about doing another site, and wondered how many of you htmlers use frames?
whetu
17-01-2004, 01:02 PM
I switched to php includes... comes out nicer than frames IMO

I do use iframes though...
KingJackal
17-01-2004, 01:05 PM
I use them, but I'd rather not. However, they're still one of the best performing solutions client-side ( only having to load the frame can significantly improve loading times ).

...the fact you can't stay HTML 4.01 compliant and hide the borders sucks though :(.
Sumo
17-01-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by whetu
I switched to php includes... comes out nicer than frames IMO

I do use iframes though...

Okay i just googled and found A LOT OF INFO!

However this was interesting

"<IFRAME name=framename src="urlofinfo.html" frameBorder=0 width=x height=y>If you see this text, iframes are not enabled on your browser, please update to the newest version!</IFRAME>"

Guess i'll try it out with 1st Page and see how it goes.

I'll check out PHP includes, however do i need to have any PHP "extensions" available on the server or are they all client side? (Or am i talking out my arse?)

Can you give me a link to an one of your examples?
whetu
17-01-2004, 02:33 PM
with php you embed the code into html thusly:

<html>

<head>
<title>php test</title>
</head>

<body>

<?php
include("banner.html");
include("main.html");
?>

</body>
</html>


IIRC.. it's been a while.. maybe it's bracketless...

but what will pop out to the client will be


<html>

<head>
<title>php test</title>
</head>

<body>

<!-- The following is 'included' from banner.html -->
<img src="images/banner.jpg" width="xxx" height="xxx" alt="PHP test">

<!-- The following is 'included' from main.html -->
<p>blah blah blah</p>

<p>more blah blah blah</p>

<p>my dog smells</p>

</body>
</html>


you'll have to have a php capable server - it's server side...

I'd be able to show you the code and iframes in action but it appears skankyflat is down like a hooker 80 bucks later
Anarchy
17-01-2004, 04:42 PM
I used to use frames, but like Whetu, I began to use php and then I would like to have control over what was displayed in the menu.
If you want to have a interface that encapsulates the menu, text and everything else, then using frames can get quite hard.
mird-OC
17-01-2004, 04:45 PM
now as i was saying, frames are bad. you shouldn't use frames. if you do use them, you're bad, because frames are bad, mkay? it's a bad thing to use frames, so don't be bad by using frames, mkay? that'd be bad, because frames are bad, mmmkay?

if at all possible, just don't do it. even tho they do have their merits, frames are dead.

iframes are not quite so bad (mkay) and are actually quite useful, however don't use them unless you need to either (mkay).

php includes is one way to tackle the issue of maintaining a single "theme" page to which content is loaded into, but if you don't have php powar, luckily many popular HTML editors like Dreamweaver have a mode which allows you to develop static html in this fashion anyway (meaning you can create an overall page design and set an area which will contain the different content of each page).
City_Idiot
17-01-2004, 05:37 PM
What about useing tables and html includes?
Ragnor
17-01-2004, 05:55 PM
I agree with most so far.

Frames = bad
IFrame = bad unless absolutely neccesary

Use tables and use scripting/programming to get the end result ala php, asp etc.
Gremlin
17-01-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Ragnor
I agree with most so far.

Frames = bad
IFrame = bad unless absolutely neccesary

Use tables and use scripting/programming to get the end result ala php, asp etc.
Agree with that, iframes has limited browser support with non IE browsers (most recent version of all should handle it though) which is why most are saying avoid if you can

Includes don't need to be script though. Virtually all *nix servers will support SSI (Server Side includes) and the include can just contain HTML. Same goes for windows just use the include directive, the only difference there is to make it work you'll need to rename pages .asp instead of .htm or .html you dont have to actually have ASP/vbScript/jScript code in them though.
MycoolCar
19-01-2004, 07:05 PM
iframes are good....asp is better :D

yeah, i used iframes for a website and it turned out pretty well.
Spoon
20-01-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by MycoolCar
iframes are good....asp is better :D

yeah, i used iframes for a website and it turned out pretty well.

PHP >>> ASP :p. Also, just as a point of interest I used includes for my latest site - here's my index.php sans headers:


<? include('includes/inc_top.php');
$page = @$_GET['page'] ;
$paged = "includes/$page.php";
if ($page == "")
include('includes/inc_index.php');
else
include($paged);
include('includes/inc_bottom.php'); ?>


So yeh - the 'top' document does the start of the table layout, the last thing in it is <td>. This opens a table cell where the actual content ($page) goes, then the bottom include starts with </td>. This is a tidy, easy solution I've found. Shameless spamming (http://id.geek.nz) (the result of the above)
Tiggerz
20-01-2004, 10:51 PM
Personally, I use frames.. Don't use IFrames because they are slow.

Then again, I dont give a monkies about stuff running in browsers other than IE. Simply because, corp software is mainly done on IE - that is, unless they are in the java camp, in which case - I dont care, and they have to invent some esoteric solution themselves.
Ragnor
21-01-2004, 01:26 AM
Inline code like includes and classic asp is fine for small sites and hacks but having code in the UI / presentaion layer is not a good design paradigm.