423,485 Members | 1,648 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 423,485 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Problem targeting frame to be populated

P: n/a
Hi All,

I'm trying to put together a model presentation system consisting of
a:
-- "toolbar" row,
-- three columns for topics, subtopics and a workarea (content)
-- a "footer" row.

The topics column presents three links. When I click on the first
link, topic1a, I expect its content to presented in the subtopics
column. It gets presented in the topics column instead. How can I
correct this?

Thanks in advance for any help,
Richard

Model Presenter.html
-------------------------------
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Website Development</title>
</head>
<noframes>
<body>
Your browser does not handle frames!
</body>
</noframes>
<frameset rows="10%,80%,10%">
<frame src="toolbar.htm" name="toolbar">
<frameset cols="10%,10%,80%">
<frame src="topics.htm" name="topics">
<frame src="subtopics.htm" name="subtopics">
<frame src="workarea.htm" name="workarea">
</frameset>
<frame src="footer.htm" name="footer">
</frameset>
</html>

topics.htm
---------------
<html>
<body bgcolor="#8F8FBD">

<h3>topics</h3>
<a href="topics1.htm" show="subtopics">Topic1</a>
<a href="topics2.htm" show="subtopics">Topic2</a>
<a href="topics3.htm" show="subtopics">Topic3</a>
</body>
</html>

Topics1.htm
------------------
<html>
<body>
<a href="'Topics1A.html" target="subtopics">Topics1a</a><br>
<a href="'Topics1B.html" target="subtopics">Topics1b</a><br>
<a href="'Topics1C.html" target="subtopics">Topics1c</a>
</body>
</html>

Mar 15 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Richard Lionheart"
<RL******@USComputerGurus.com> writing in news:1142393465.984624.129340
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Hi All,

I'm trying to put together a model presentation system consisting of
a:
-- "toolbar" row,
-- three columns for topics, subtopics and a workarea (content)
-- a "footer" row.

The topics column presents three links. When I click on the first
link, topic1a, I expect its content to presented in the subtopics
column. It gets presented in the topics column instead. How can I
correct this?

Thanks in advance for any help,
Richard

Model Presenter.html
-------------------------------
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd"> <html> <head>
<title>Website Development</title> </head> <noframes> <body> Your
browser does not handle frames! </body>
By Golly! That's terrible, and so 80's.
<www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/frames/noframes.html>

</noframes>
<frameset rows="10%,80%,10%">
<frame src="toolbar.htm" name="toolbar"> <frameset cols="10%,10%,80%">
<frame src="topics.htm" name="topics">
<frame src="subtopics.htm" name="subtopics">
<frame src="workarea.htm" name="workarea">
</frameset>
<frame src="footer.htm" name="footer"> </frameset> </html>

topics.htm
---------------
<html>
<body bgcolor="#8F8FBD">

<h3>topics</h3>
<a href="topics1.htm" show="subtopics">Topic1</a>
Here's your problem - there is no attribute SHOW for the frameset DTD, nor
any other. You are looking for TARGET, which you correctly in topics1.htm.
Topics1.htm
------------------
<a href="'Topics1A.html" target="subtopics">Topics1a</a><br>


--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Mar 15 '06 #2

P: n/a
On 14 Mar 2006, Richard Lionheart wrote:
<noframes>
Your browser does not handle frames!
</noframes>


This is as stupid as
alt="Your browser does not handle images!"

--
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Denmark.
And therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Jeg er dansker!"

Mar 15 '06 #3

P: n/a
On Wed, 14 Mar 2006, Richard Lionheart wrote:
<noframes>
<body>
Your browser does not handle frames!
</body>
</noframes>


I think you meant:

"Downgrade your browser now, to one that cannot disable frames"
Mar 15 '06 #4

P: n/a
Tim
Richard Lionheart wrote:
<noframes>
<body>
Your browser does not handle frames!
</body>
</noframes>

Alan J. Flavell: I think you meant:

"Downgrade your browser now, to one that cannot disable frames"


Or, "My authoring skills are impaired, you cannot browse"

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please destroy some files yourself.

Mar 15 '06 #5

P: n/a
Hi Adrienne,

Re: target = ...

Thank you very much. I was getting lost in the details, so I went to
this life-line, which came to my aid beautifully. I would have
extricated myself eventually, but this was so much more civilized.

Again, Many Thanks,
Richard

Mar 15 '06 #6

P: n/a
Hi Andreas,

Thanks for your response.
This is as stupid as
alt="Your browser does not handle images!"


But I wonder if this is really a constructive or even polite response?
Do you think I went out of my way to post some stupid code. Or do you
think I might be new to HTML authoring? Do you think I might have
gotten this code from I site widely consulted on things Internet, e.g.
W3Schools.com?

So how about telling me whether "noframes" was once used but is now
felt unnecessary, perhaps deprecated?

I'm glad to see you're proud to be a Dane. I'm sure if I, an American,
visited Denmark, I wouldn't be insulted for not speaking Danish well or
at all.

Regards,
Richard

Mar 15 '06 #7

P: n/a
Hi Alan,
I think you meant:
"Downgrade your browser now, to one that cannot disable frames"


Do you mean this code is unnecessary because virtually all browsers can
nowadays accommodate frames? Or do you mean I should have included
guidance of some sort for the poor user who has an old browser. Or do
you mean I should go into some other line of work instead of HTML
authoring?

Regards,
Richard

Mar 15 '06 #8

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Richard Lionheart"
<RL******@USComputerGurus.com> writing in news:1142447408.714422.57390
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Hi Alan,
I think you meant:
"Downgrade your browser now, to one that cannot disable frames"


Do you mean this code is unnecessary because virtually all browsers can
nowadays accommodate frames? Or do you mean I should have included
guidance of some sort for the poor user who has an old browser. Or do
you mean I should go into some other line of work instead of HTML
authoring?

Regards,
Richard


There are many, many problems with frames and that is why you are
discouraged from using them. That being said, there _are_ valid reasons
why a site would use frames. They are not:
1. So that the menu stays in place for all pages
2. So that edits to a menu only have to be to one file
3. To provide scrolling part way down the page, keeping the header in view
all the time

Number 1 can be solved with CSS and some sort of server side include
Number 2 is solved by a server side include
Number 3 is solved with CSS

The only valid reason I can think of for using frames is that they are
resizeable, although most authors disallow resizing.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Mar 16 '06 #9

P: n/a
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Richard Lionheart wrote, quoting me:
I think you meant:
"Downgrade your browser now, to one that cannot disable frames"
Do you mean this code is unnecessary because virtually all browsers
can nowadays accommodate frames?


Not at all. I mean that advanced browsers allow the user to disable
frames quite deliberately, and it would be wise for you to accommodate
to their preferences, rather than trying to argue with them.

What I didn't mention is that there are browsing situations where
frames make no sense (e.g a speaking browser), and your accommodation
will be to their benefit also.
Or do you mean I should have included guidance of some sort for the
poor user who has an old browser.


I don't know what you have in mind as an "old browser". The old
browsers which I'm thinking of are those which don't allow the user to
disable frames - so they're stuck with your frameset whether they
like it or not.

The better ones, as I say, allow the user to choose your non-framed
variant, if you've had the perspicacity to provide one. Those users
*DO NOT* want to find that you've provided some silly text that argues
with their choice. Remember the principle that in business, nobody
ever won an argument with a customer[1]

On the other hand a browser like Lynx *does* have support for frames -
it just doesn't handle them in the way you might expect. So Lynx
users are irritatedly accustomed to seeing misguided authors telling
them that they can't use frames, along with the links which *do* give
them access to the frames.

I't all rather a mess; quite a number of experienced authors would
advise you to lose the compulsory-two-dimensional picture of frames,
and simply adopt a more flexible approach without them. Making a
properly accessible frame-based site, with its accessible fallback, is
feasible, but it needs extra work, and a certain minimum of expertise:
I'm one of the people who would advise against it, in general. And
especially when your reactions seem to show that you have a quite
narrow experience of the possible range of client agent situations.

Did I mention that getting frame-based sites to work well with search
engines also needs extra care?

cheers

[1] http://www.jahns-home.de/rentmei/html/opti.html

Mar 16 '06 #10

P: n/a
Richard Lionheart wrote:
But I wonder if this is really a constructive or even polite response?


Hey Richard, it probably wasn't. That's the norm here. As they say,
"power corrupts". This is the rule in general on the comp.* hierarchy,
where people come to you all day needing help, and you can withhold
that help at whim ... the more needed, the more withheld, it seems.
(You can tell I don't have any immediate questions to be answered, as
I wouldn't insult anyone here who could possibly help me one day. But
that's how it works on comp.*)

Anyway, don't worry about it. It's all a learning experience.

Ian
--
http://sundry.ws
Mar 16 '06 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.