> it's easier just to dispense with
> frames for complex websites utilizing CGIs.
I've been watching the frames debate for many years now with great interest.
I also noticed the change of the Witango site from frames to single page.
Early reasons for not using frames were usually due to complexity. There are
some very valid reasons not to use frames such as the inability to bookmark
a current frameset (ie. The frames that are currently loaded as opposed tot
he original frameset document) and problems with search engines.
But the quoted comment proves that the old 'too hard' argument is still
strong and well.
I have seen many single frame sites executed extremely well. I've also been
publicly ridiculed by a trainer who suggested that he needn't answer my
question about frames because no real web developers use then (at the same
time showing off a demonstration site that scrolled for three pages and had
buttons at the bottom.
Personally I use frames. I use all the right variables to ensure that I
don't have any refresh problems and I know how to target them all so the
sites work correctly. I've even devised a system that allows people to
forward simple URLs (on the phone, on fax, or even in email) that result in
the correct frameset with the article loaded in the appropriate frame.
Not all the issues have been dealt with. You still can't bookmark a current
frameset. But in my opinion the benefits outweigh the limitations. And if
the powers that be could do their part of the work we'd have a frames system
that only the luddites could ignore.
YMMV
Wayne Irvine
Byte Services Pty Ltd
http://www.byteserve.com.au/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 02 9960 6099 Mob 0409 960 609 Fax 02 9960 6088
________________________________________________________________________
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/developer/maillist.taf
