 | | Re: web page in frames —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) Those people are silly. :) I'm serious, actually. It's a prejudice spawned by a lot of sites with terrible use of frames. Sure, they're easy to misuse, but that doesn't make all uses bad. (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: web page in frames —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) No, what makes frames bad is that the browsers don't give any easy way to discover the URL for any but the top frame. This opens the door real wide for banner abuse, and there's nothing you can do on the server end to indicate beneficial (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: web page in frames —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not convinced by that. You could say exactly the same thing for images, and it's been a few years since I heard anyone calling for the abolishment of graphics on the web. (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: web page in frames —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Didn't we have this debate already? I'm on the other side of the fence from you on this. Nothing has changed since the last time I listed my reasons. (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: web page in frames —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Hmm, I don't remember. Possible though. Sorry if we're just rehashing. (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: web page in frames —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Hash away. Something may have changed and it's good education for those that weren't here to hear both sides. I just feel, as I did before (and my post was shorthand for the longer version) that most anything you could do with frames can be done (...) (25 years ago, 12-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
