View Single Post
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-03-2003, 19:41
jonathan lall's Avatar
jonathan lall jonathan lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #2505 (The Electric Sheep; FRC #0188 alumnus)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 547
jonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to jonathan lall
Frames, IMO are a matter of taste, and depend on the content your site is trying to deliver. They are an easy way to get a header and navigation bar, and are still the only way to put HTML file within another. Effects can be simulated by CSS, but for a quick way, frames are the answer, and are likely here to stay. In fact, the W3C knows this and is continuing development on Xframes and framesets for XHTML 1.

BTW, a lot of you saying you use tables as spacers are actually using them in an incorrect manner. CSS is what you're supposed to use to space out parts in a page. The reasons for this are how different browsers display frames and how tabular data in tables is interpreted. However, like frames, it is the easy way out for delivering pretty content, and I do it too.

And, 800 x 600 may be 'standard resolution', but I bet if you polled all the people here, the vast majority would use something larger. Besides, 800 x 600 is useless on a screen 17" or larger.
__________________