Is there a way to allow css to act like a simple 2 frame setup.

I want a fixed navigation header on all pages, website itself has 100+
pages, each is multi paged with sub pages.

So what I could do in frame is have 2 frames and clicking in the header
frame would load a seperate html page in the main frame, therefore not
having to repeat the header code 100+ times, can this be done using css?

I know css can use a float or fixed header position, even using margins to
trick ie into making a header section fixed. But this still seems like I
would have to repeat the header css on each page, it would just be more
fluid if the header always stayed loaded as it does using frames.
Or is this scenario not going to work in css YET?

BTW each page is header on top, fixed height and width, and main body is
scrollable up/down.

TIA (Thank-you In Advance)


--
kalynuik1@hotmail.comcomcom
-=< FreeWare ForEver >=-

No css doesn't really work like this. If your web site is on a unix
machine then you probably want to use a server side include (SSI). You
use some simple programing in your page to call another document to be
inserted. The page is assembled by the server from multiple files
before the user gets it.

Do a search on SSI or check this random site:
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/beyond/we...le.php/3473341

Or say you should give PHP include() a try.

In article <1142488861.567397.68160@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>,
"aaronlaw@gmail.com" <aaronlaw@gmail.com> writes[color=blue]
>Or say you should give PHP include() a try.[/color]

The truth is that any modern web platform will give you a way to include
files on the server side. CGI, ASP, ASP.NET, Cold Fusion, PHP, you name
it, there's loads of them.

There's really very little justification for frames when web servers are
so powerful nowadays.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

This is exactly what I am trying to find out as I jump into CSS for the
first time. (First impression: about 30% of all CSS coding is devoted to
getting round the non standard quirks of IE...)

I want a block of links which will act as a navbar, which load ONE frame
without flickering etc as they themselves, and their images, are
reloaded. Without having to be retyped and maintained in every page of
the site. That's what frames are good at.

I'm looking at the iFrames element (or do I mean selector) at the
moment. It seems to be a CSS equivalent of frames, but somewhat more
complicated, and there are dire warnings about it not working the same
in all browsers / the usual linking and printing problems with frames. I
suspect the warnings about "not all browsers" were written a couple of
years ago though and would welcome peoples' thoughts on the current
worth of iFrames. Or some healthy mocking and heavy hints about "look at
X, kid."
[color=blue]
>There's really very little justification for frames when web servers
>are so powerful nowadays.[/color]

I think you've got a purist, professional attitude there sir. I'm an
amateur who wants to spruce up an old home site. I don't have the time
to learn Unix, SSI stuff (heck, I don't have much time to learn CSS ) so
I want a quick easy fix. I don't think my ISP's servers do stuff like
that for free anyhow, and I'll be developing my CSS scripts (using
Notepad of course) on a laptop running Windows. No hope for me, is
there? ;)
--
Nemo

> I'm looking at the iFrames element (or do I mean selector) at the[color=blue]
> moment. It seems to be a CSS equivalent of frames, but somewhat more
> complicated, and there are dire warnings about it not working the same
> in all browsers / the usual linking and printing problems with frames. I
> suspect the warnings about "not all browsers" were written a couple of
> years ago though and would welcome peoples' thoughts on the current
> worth of iFrames. Or some healthy mocking and heavy hints about "look at
> X, kid."[/color]

The iframe does not have anything to do with CSS. If you want to use
frames or iframes then go ahead. If you are doing it for convience sake
in building the webpage, I would suggest a good web editor that
maintains your site (and navbar). I think this works well and doesn't
add crappy frames to your site. I think you are discounting the
suggestions of the server side includes though. If you look at the link
I gave you can see that it is very simple to do some very powerful
things.

I'm no expert so feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake or have
an opionion that needs fixing. LOL

On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:17:07 +0100, Nemo <Nemo@splurge.org> wrote:

[color=blue][color=green]
>>There's really very little justification for frames when web servers
>>are so powerful nowadays.[/color]
>
>I think you've got a purist, professional attitude there sir. I'm an
>amateur who wants to spruce up an old home site. I don't have the time
>to learn Unix, SSI stuff (heck, I don't have much time to learn CSS ) so
>I want a quick easy fix. I don't think my ISP's servers do stuff like
>that for free anyhow,[/color]

Your best bet for handling the common markup in each page would be
preprocessing. I use a small, old, simple (and free) command-line
preprocessor called Orb, but there are probably better (free) ones
around.
[color=blue]
> and I'll be developing my CSS scripts (using
>Notepad of course) on a laptop running Windows. No hope for me, is
>there? ;)[/color]

Well, Notepad *is* a rather masochistic approach. ;-) At least try
upgrading to NoteTab (or one of the other text editors that get
recommended here from time to time.)

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

I checked your SSI link, decided it DID look easy and a sensible
approach, but alas it seems my ISP doesn't support it unless I pay more
$$$ for a business style osting service. Ah well. I have learnt
something. Thank you, chaps

Nemo

Nemo wrote:[color=blue]
> I checked your SSI link, decided it DID look easy and a sensible
> approach, but alas it seems my ISP doesn't support it unless I pay more
> $$$ for a business style osting service. Ah well. I have learnt
> something. Thank you, chaps
>
> Nemo[/color]

I had some problems which would be solved using SSI, but I use a free
website provided by my ISP.

What do they provide?
No SSI, no SS scripting, no databases - zero zilch, nil.

So I came across a great script by David Dorward which does the
includes for you on your PC.

It is written in Perl, so you need to download the Perl interpreter,
but once you have done that, it works like a charm.

David named it The Dolt - don't know why but a catchy name
Here is his site:
http://dorward.me.uk/software/dolt/

I have had some correspondence with him by emila and I have revised the
script a bit, so my version is also attached (if I figure out how to
attach in Google). The functionality is exactly the same, it just gives
a bit more info on the log.

I couldn't figure to how to attach a file so here is where you can
download my revised Dolt script
http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/dolt-3_0_1.zip

P.S. Can you attach a file in this forum and if so, how?

Trevor L. wrote:[color=blue]
> P.S. Can you attach a file in this forum and if so, how?[/color]

No. This is a Usenet text-only forum. Just because Google Groups
allows you (and me) access to it doesn't mean they have added (or are
capable of adding) functionality to it.

--
Vid the Kid

Alan Silver wrote:[color=blue]
> There's really very little justification for frames when web servers are
> so powerful nowadays.[/color]

Here's two counterarguments:

1. Not everybody's hosting situation provides this capability.

2. Not all web surfers have a high-speed connection. If I were
visiting a site that had a constant navbar, especially one which
includes images, I would be VERY glad to have it in a frame where it
only loads once, rather than have it included in every page and re-sent
to me over and over again. (At my house, we have a 24kbps connection
shared between 3 computers - luckily, it's not very often more than one
is in use at the same time. This is out of my control.) Case in
point: just about every web-based e-mail service. Everytime you click
on *anything* you have to wait for an entire new page to load, of which
usually more than half is navigation and other UI that's identical to
what was there moments before. The beautiful exception is GMail, which
uses JavaScript to manipulate the interface on the client side, and the
bulk of the information that has to be downloaded is actual e-mail
content.

--
Vid the Kid

In article <1144030034.542552.71970@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups. com>,
"Trevor L." <tandcl@homemail.com.au> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I couldn't figure to how to attach a file so here is where you can
> download my revised Dolt script
> http://tandcl.homemail.com.au/dolt-3_0_1.zip
>
> P.S. Can you attach a file in this forum and if so, how?[/color]

The way you did it now appears correct providing you followed Mr.
Dorward's terms and conditions.
You might want to check:
<http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/> which addresses more
general questions you might not think you have.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

tOn 2006-04-03, VidTheKid <vidthekid@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Alan Silver wrote:[color=green]
>> There's really very little justification for frames when web servers are
>> so powerful nowadays.[/color]
>
> Here's two counterarguments:
>
> 1. Not everybody's hosting situation provides this capability.
>
> 2. Not all web surfers have a high-speed connection. If I were
> visiting a site that had a constant navbar, especially one which
> includes images, I would be VERY glad to have it in a frame where it
> only loads once, rather than have it included in every page and re-sent
> to me over and over again.[/color]

If the images stay the same they only download once. the html OTOH is
repeated between pages.

Bye.
Jasen