By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
445,771 Members | 1,669 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 445,771 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

frames attributes

P: n/a
I am building a website for the first time. In attempting to validate
my frameset html file I came across the following URL
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/

The 3 errors I am getting are all regarding the following:

<frameset rows="100,*" frameborder="0" border="0" framespacing="0">

The errors are:

Line 16, column 35: there is no attribute "FRAMEBORDER"
Line 16, column 46: there is no attribute "BORDER"
Line 16, column 63: there is no attribute "FRAMESPACING"

In reading up on the above url I found no such attribute as "border" or
"framespacing". I did find "frameborder", "marginwidth", and
"marginheight". The information also contains examples in which these
attributes are all inside the <frame> element as opposed to the
<frameset> element.

I attempted to correct my page's errors by moving frameborder="0" into
the <frame> elements of my document, removing "border" and
"framespacing" attributes, and adding marginwidth="0" and
marginheight="0".
The result was white space around all of my frames in both Netscape 7.0
and IE 6. I ended up reverting back to the original which is:

<frameset rows="100,*" frameborder="0" border="0" framespacing="0">
<frameset cols="170,*" frameborder="0" border="0" framespacing="0">
<frame src="sg_tl.html" name="A" scrolling="no" noresize="noresize">
<frame src="sg_top.html" name="B" scrolling="no" noresize="noresize">
</frameset>
<frameset cols="164,*" frameborder="0" border="0" framespacing="0">
<frame src="sg_menu.html" name="C" scrolling="auto" noresize="noresize">
<frame src="main.html" name="D" scrolling="auto" noresize="noresize">
</frameset>
</frameset>

The site looks as it I intended it to in both NS and IE, but it just
won't validate.
Does anyone have any suggestions?

My website is
http://members.cox.net/solidgroundba...main_page.html

Thank you,
Jonathan

Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
18 Replies


P: n/a
Jonathan Carmichael wrote:
I am building a website for the first time. In attempting to validate
my frameset html file


Browser support for standard frames markup is poor. However, frames are
almost always a bad idea in the first place.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Prob...h_using_frames

While there are some circumstances where they might be useful, the odds of
you running into them while trying to create your first website are remote
(to say the least).
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:30:52 -0400, Jonathan Carmichael
<jo****************@cox.net> wrote:
My website is
http://members.cox.net/solidgroundba...main_page.html
I've mixed the order of your post up for my reply.
I am building a website for the first time.


Don't use frames. Bad bad bad. This is not a suitable application of
frames. See http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

BTW - the little digging man is SO last decade. It's like wearing a bowtie
to high school, you'll get teased to no end. In fact, don't say your site
is under construction. Just design it as if it were live, and don't
release it until it's ready.

Not to be cruel - your site makes it look like you're in middle school and
just started a band. Whether or not that's the case, you don't want to
advertise yourself like that.

Dump the frames, use CSS positioning to put the navigation in place, and
please oh please put much much less space between the nav items. I could
go on, but this would be a good start.
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
Wow! There are obviously some strong opinions here. Fortunately
designing web pages is not my life. I just decided to try to put one
together for my band about a week ago in my spare time (which isn't
much). I will certainly take your suggestions into consideration. Can
you point me to a good resource for learning how to use css quickly?
Would you mind giving me the short version on frames? Why are frames bad?
Thank you,
Jonathan
Neal wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:30:52 -0400, Jonathan Carmichael
<jo****************@cox.net> wrote:
My website is
http://members.cox.net/solidgroundba...main_page.html

I've mixed the order of your post up for my reply.
I am building a website for the first time.

Don't use frames. Bad bad bad. This is not a suitable application of
frames. See http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

BTW - the little digging man is SO last decade. It's like wearing a
bowtie to high school, you'll get teased to no end. In fact, don't say
your site is under construction. Just design it as if it were live, and
don't release it until it's ready.

Not to be cruel - your site makes it look like you're in middle school
and just started a band. Whether or not that's the case, you don't want
to advertise yourself like that.

Dump the frames, use CSS positioning to put the navigation in place, and
please oh please put much much less space between the nav items. I could
go on, but this would be a good start.


Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 07:12:40 -0400, Jonathan Carmichael
<jo****************@cox.net> wrote:
Wow! There are obviously some strong opinions here. Fortunately
designing web pages is not my life.
That's ok. Driving the car's not my life, but I make sure I do it safely
and responsibly, with consideration for everyone on the road! (and in my
car)!

That's all I'm saying. I've been where you are now. I'm not a pro, I do
this because I like to. But I discovered my web pages looked stupid and
acted weird, and I worked to fix it. You can too.
I just decided to try to put one together for my band about a week ago
in my spare time (which isn't much).
That's where you start. The fact you have done SOMETHING is good. But
can't lie to you, it's not going to sell your band too well as is. Might
hurt more than help.
I will certainly take your suggestions into consideration. Can you
point me to a good resource for learning how to use css quickly? Would
you mind giving me the short version on frames? Why are frames bad?


Well, I posted a link on frame use in my post. Here it is again:
http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

To do stylesheets you first need good HTML, then add CSS to it. The goal
is that your page looks fine with NO style, and with style it looks
better. I recommend http://www.w3schools.com for HTML and CSS tutorials.
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
Jonathan Carmichael <jo****************@cox.net> wrote in
news:PaW0d.24179$ni.14963@okepread01:
Would you mind giving me the short version on frames? Why
are frames bad? Thank you,
Jonathan


Yeah, people in this newsgroup are blunt and harsh. But that's only
because we're nice to people :)

The main reason frames are bad is that people can't link to pages within
your site. If I wanted to tell people where they could find out about your
schedule, I would have to give them a link to your main frameset and then
give instructions on where to click to find the schedule. Frankly, it'd be
much easier if I could give the URL of the schedule directly. Frames do
not permit this.

Your Web page is less than useful if people can't link to it the way they
want.

As for the Under Construction logo... it's just a matter of his tastes
versus yours. Of course, theoretically, good Web sites never cease to be
under construction :)
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a


Sam Hughes wrote:
The main reason frames are bad is that people can't link to pages within
your site. If I wanted to tell people where they could find out about your
schedule, I would have to give them a link to your main frameset and then
give instructions on where to click to find the schedule. Frankly, it'd be
much easier if I could give the URL of the schedule directly. Frames do
not permit this.


That makes sense. Thank you! :)

Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
On 12 Sep 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Sam Hughes <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote:
As for the Under Construction logo... it's just a matter of his tastes
versus yours.
But my tastes are always correct! ;)
Of course, theoretically, good Web sites never cease to be
under construction :)


That's the point. Adding the little digging man implies that you haven't
put enough work into the site yet to merit someone's time. Instead, use
the time you'd take to put that silly little graphic up to add some
content which will be of use to your visitor. That action directly
benefits the site.
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
In article <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>,
Sam Hughes <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote:
The main reason frames are bad is that people can't link to pages within
your site. If I wanted to tell people where they could find out about your
schedule, I would have to give them a link to your main frameset and then
give instructions on where to click to find the schedule. Frankly, it'd be
much easier if I could give the URL of the schedule directly. Frames do
not permit this.


My knowledge of HTML is amateur and still evolving, but I've
experimented a bit with frames and I just don't understand this.

To stick with your example, suppose my schedule is one of 10 or 20
free-standing "content pages" on my site (some of these content pages
are actually a small set of linked pages).

The index.html page for my site is a frame set: it has a "header pane";
a "menu pane" with 4 or 5 "topic" links that point to second-level
"submenu pages"; and a "main pane".

Clicking on any of the menu-pane links brings up the associated
second-level submenu page, which itself contains nothing but annotated
links to a partial set of the content pages; this submenu page appears
in the main pane of the index.html page.

Clicking on any of the links in any of these submenu pages opens up the
associated content page -- for example, my schedule -- in a **new
window**, since all those links have "target = "_top"".

A user who gets to and views a content page this way can go directly
back to the index page using the browser's back button, or a "back to
home" link I may put on the content page, and move down to a new content
page.

In other words, the first two levels of the site tree are totally for
**navigation** purposes, and the **content** pages of the site all
appear in new windows -- and it's a **one-step** process to get back
from any content page to the single navigation page.

If the user wants to bookmark (or print) my schedule page, he can just
do so. If I want to tell a user how to access my schedule page
directly, I just send him the URL for that particular content page.

This certainly functions well, for me and the user -- what the h-ll is
"evil" about it?

I've recently gone down the full list of alleged defects on the "FAQ"
page http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil, and as far as I
can see, **none** of the alleged problems in that list apply to this use
of frames.

And if it is so evil, then what's an alternative, equally simple,
equally easy, and non-evil way to do this **in HTML** without using
frames? (and without having to learn SSI, CGI, PHP, ASP, PDQ, QDP,
QPD, PQD, etc, which I'm definitely not interested in having to do)
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:40:44 -0700, AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu>
wrote:
Clicking on any of the links in any of these submenu pages opens up the
associated content page -- for example, my schedule -- in a **new
window**, since all those links have "target = "_top"".
New windows are a usability problem.
And if it is so evil, then what's an alternative, equally simple,
equally easy, and non-evil way to do this **in HTML** without using
frames? (and without having to learn SSI, CGI, PHP, ASP, PDQ, QDP,
QPD, PQD, etc, which I'm definitely not interested in having to do)


Sorry if you're not interested. If I'm not interested in learning HTML I
can make my site in Frontpage, and screw you, the user.

The responsible author learns what they need to make the site worthwhile.
And if your navigation is so huge that it needs frames to make it easier
to load, that's a design problem.
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:40:44 -0700, AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu>
declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Clicking on any of the menu-pane links brings up the associated
second-level submenu page, which itself contains nothing but annotated
links to a partial set of the content pages; this submenu page appears
in the main pane of the index.html page.
So getting to any part of the actual content of your site requires
navigating through two levels of menus? Your site structure needs
rethinking.
Clicking on any of the links in any of these submenu pages opens up the
associated content page -- for example, my schedule -- in a **new
window**, since all those links have "target = "_top"".
Not here it doesn't. It opens it in the same window, with no navigation.
A user who gets to and views a content page this way can go directly
back to the index page using the browser's back button,
Not if they were sent the link from someone else, or arrived via Google.
And didn't you say this was supposed to be a new window? If that's the
case, the back button won't work anyway.
or a "back to
home" link I may put on the content page,
So instead of being able to go directly to another page they may want to
look at, they have to go to the home page first and muddle their way
through your two levels of menus first? I'll pass. Back to Google, find
a site that is user-friendly.
This certainly functions well, for me and the user -- what the h-ll is
"evil" about it?
Besides what I've mentioned above, opening new windows is not a good
idea either.
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day...w_windows.html
And if it is so evil, then what's an alternative, equally simple,
equally easy, and non-evil way to do this **in HTML** without using
frames?
HTML doesn't *do* anything. It describes the structure of the document.
Nothing more, nothing less.

What exactly is it you're referring to here, anyway?
(and without having to learn SSI, CGI, PHP, ASP, PDQ, QDP,
QPD, PQD, etc, which I'm definitely not interested in having to do)


I'm not familiar with any but the first 4 of those ;-)
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Incl...ile_in_another

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in news:gy2y3yqqknpi
$.*****************@40tude.net:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:40:44 -0700, AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu>
declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Clicking on any of the menu-pane links brings up the associated
second-level submenu page, which itself contains nothing but annotated
links to a partial set of the content pages; this submenu page appears
in the main pane of the index.html page.


So getting to any part of the actual content of your site requires
navigating through two levels of menus? Your site structure needs
rethinking.


Sometimes it's nice to put in a navigation system that has extra layers
_now_, instead of needing to put them in later, when the site has ten times
as much content.
Clicking on any of the links in any of these submenu pages opens up
the associated content page -- for example, my schedule -- in a **new
window**, since all those links have "target = "_top"".


Not here it doesn't. It opens it in the same window, with no
navigation.


I guess he means it doesn't use any of the **old** windows that were
defined by his frameset. Obviously he's not opening a new window.
Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote in
news:si***************************@news.stanford.e du:
And if it is so evil, then what's an alternative, equally simple,
equally easy, and non-evil way to do this **in HTML** without using
frames? (and without having to learn SSI, CGI, PHP, ASP, PDQ, QDP,
QPD, PQD, etc, which I'm definitely not interested in having to do)


You learned frames, but you don't want to learn SSI. SSI is simpler than
frames. Observe how SSI includes the contents of menu.txt into the file:

<!--#include virtual="menu.txt" -->

Tada!

One useful feature would be to be able to look at your annotated sub-
navigation menus by themselves (which are a _GOOD_ idea), so that they can
be linked to themselves without pain. Because people _will_ want to link
to them, because annotated menus are very good and useful.

Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
On 14 Sep 2004 17:56:44 GMT, Sam Hughes <hu****@rpi.edu> wrote:
AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote in
news:si***************************@news.stanford. edu:
And if it is so evil, then what's an alternative, equally simple,
equally easy, and non-evil way to do this **in HTML** without using
frames? (and without having to learn SSI, CGI, PHP, ASP, PDQ, QDP,
QPD, PQD, etc, which I'm definitely not interested in having to do)


You learned frames, but you don't want to learn SSI. SSI is simpler than
frames. Observe how SSI includes the contents of menu.txt into the file:

<!--#include virtual="menu.txt" -->

Tada!


Or PHP:

<?php require 'menu.txt'; ?>

If you have both SSI and PHP available, I'd recommend PHP, because it's
just as easy for the basic things but can do a lot more if you ever need
it.

If you don't have either then there's preprocessing, which can be as
simple or complicated as you wish.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
JRS: In article <Xn**************************@130.133.1.4>, dated Sun,
12 Sep 2004 19:22:36, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Sam Hughes <hu****@rpi.edu> posted :
The main reason frames are bad is that people can't link to pages within
your site. If I wanted to tell people where they could find out about your
schedule, I would have to give them a link to your main frameset and then
give instructions on where to click to find the schedule. Frankly, it'd be
much easier if I could give the URL of the schedule directly. Frames do
not permit this.

Not necessarily. You can link to any page on my site, such as that in
sig line 3 below. With one click, you can then frame the page (assuming
the code has not broken); and with another, you can de-frame it. You
can navigate both with and without frames. Given a link to any page, a
search engine can find all other pages.

Thoughtless use of frames is bad; but frames can be used without
enforcing the bad effects usually mentioned.

Javascript is necessary, IIRC, for a general page to frame itself; but
IIRC the root page may link without script to itself framed.

Only half a line is needed on each page for self-framing.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Javascript is necessary, IIRC, for a general page to frame itself; but
IIRC the root page may link without script to itself framed.

Only half a line is needed on each page for self-framing.


All you need is a single link to a new frameset page that specifies the
correct content document.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Cheaters never win; they just finish first." - Johhny Hart
Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
JRS: In article <ci**********@blue.rahul.net>, dated Wed, 15 Sep 2004
17:22:06, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> posted :
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Javascript is necessary, IIRC, for a general page to frame itself; but
IIRC the root page may link without script to itself framed.

Only half a line is needed on each page for self-framing.


All you need is a single link to a new frameset page that specifies the
correct content document.


That's not what I would call self-framing. That half-line links to a
*single* page; I do not need a different frameset page for every
"actual" page.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20; Win98.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.
Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Javascript is necessary, IIRC, for a general page to frame itself; but
IIRC the root page may link without script to itself framed.

Only half a line is needed on each page for self-framing.

I wrote: All you need is a single link to a new frameset page that specifies the
correct content document.

Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: That's not what I would call self-framing. That half-line links to a
*single* page; I do not need a different frameset page for every
"actual" page.


Actually, you do need a different frameset for every content page. You just
use an unreliable mechanism (client-side JavaScript) to create those
frameset configurations, where I would use reliable server-side mechanisms.

Actually, I wouldn't be using frames in the first place, but that's another
issue.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"What is the use of running when you are not on the right road?"
Jul 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
JRS: In article <ci**********@blue.rahul.net>, dated Thu, 16 Sep 2004
18:07:49, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> posted :
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Javascript is necessary, IIRC, for a general page to frame itself; but
IIRC the root page may link without script to itself framed.

Only half a line is needed on each page for self-framing.
I wrote: All you need is a single link to a new frameset page that specifies the
correct content document.

Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
That's not what I would call self-framing. That half-line links to a
*single* page; I do not need a different frameset page for every
"actual" page.


Actually, you do need a different frameset for every content page. You just
use an unreliable mechanism (client-side JavaScript) to create those
frameset configurations, where I would use reliable server-side mechanisms.


No server-side mechanism is available to me.
Actually, I wouldn't be using frames in the first place, but that's another
issue.


I don't use them in the first place; I make them available to those who
want them in the second place.

For quite a number of my pages, it is reasonable to assume that
javascript is available. You should see why on considering the sig
below.

Those without javascript can still have the pages framed, of course;
they just have to take a slightly longer route involving a couple more
clicks and a probable scroll to be framed and back at the page in
question.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #19

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.