468,121 Members | 1,445 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,121 developers. It's quick & easy.

Frames -- Disable/Enable Menus

Hi All,
Currently i am working in a framed environment where i have
divided the window as 20% and 80% and the 20% is used for navigation
purpose and right frame for displaying the orignal content. Now i want
to Disable ad Enable the menu items which are placed in the left frame
for navigation purpose.

Can any of you input me with any idea as how to proceed? If you
need any other information then please let me know.

Thanks!
Jun 27 '08 #1
56 3402
Deepan HTML wrote:
Hi All,
Currently i am working in a framed environment where i have
divided the window as 20% and 80% and the 20% is used for navigation
purpose and right frame for displaying the orignal content. Now i want
to Disable ad Enable the menu items which are placed in the left frame
for navigation purpose.

Can any of you input me with any idea as how to proceed? If you
need any other information then please let me know.
There is two possible ways to do it.
First way is to use javascript and it is relatively simple. You define
javascript function to control menu item status and call it as onload() at all
right pages with 2 parameters - item id and needed state. For example
<body onload="setmenu('first','disable')">
This way you can use for static html pages.

Second way is to use scripts (Perl CGI or PHP) to generate frameset and left
page. In this case you must use links to frameset with parameters and this
script (for generating frameset) pass paramaters to other script for
generating left menu. This way is relatively more complex but work even if
user have javascript disabled.

--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your
mail from another non-spammer site please.)

Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Jun 27 '08 #2
Petr Vileta wrote:
Second way is to use scripts (Perl CGI or PHP) to generate frameset and
left page. In this case you must use links to frameset with parameters
and this script (for generating frameset) pass paramaters to other
script for generating left menu. This way is relatively more complex but
work even if user have javascript disabled.
If doing it this way then dispense with frames all together!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
how to include one html file in another - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...il&btnG=Search
why frames are evil - Google Search

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #3
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Petr Vileta wrote:
>Second way is to use scripts (Perl CGI or PHP) to generate frameset
and left page. In this case you must use links to frameset with
parameters and this script (for generating frameset) pass paramaters
to other script for generating left menu. This way is relatively
more complex but work even if user have javascript disabled.

If doing it this way then dispense with frames all together!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
how to include one html file in another - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...il&btnG=Search
why frames are evil - Google Search
Yes, I know it, but original question was be about "How to do for frames" ;-)
(see Subject)
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your
mail from another non-spammer site please.)

Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Jun 27 '08 #4
Petr Vileta wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...il&btnG=Search
why frames are evil - Google Search

Yes, I know it, but original question was be about "How to do for frames" ;-)
If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?
(see Subject)
Welcome to Usenet. ;)

--
Berg
Jun 27 '08 #5
Petr Vileta wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>Petr Vileta wrote:
>>Second way is to use scripts (Perl CGI or PHP) to generate frameset
and left page. In this case you must use links to frameset with
parameters and this script (for generating frameset) pass paramaters
to other script for generating left menu. This way is relatively
more complex but work even if user have javascript disabled.

If doing it this way then dispense with frames all together!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

how to include one html file in another - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...il&btnG=Search
why frames are evil - Google Search

Yes, I know it, but original question was be about "How to do for
frames" ;-) (see Subject)
Yes but if you are employing server-side then there is no need for
frames in the first place. Frames was an early *hack* to modularize
webpage development when server-side scripting was being developed and
both expensive and not widely available. Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #6
On 4/21/2008 6:07 AM, Petr Vileta wrote [in part]:
Deepan HTML wrote:
>Hi All,
Currently i am working in a framed environment where i have
divided the window as 20% and 80% and the 20% is used for navigation
purpose and right frame for displaying the orignal content. Now i want
to Disable ad Enable the menu items which are placed in the left frame
for navigation purpose.

Can any of you input me with any idea as how to proceed? If you
need any other information then please let me know.
There is two possible ways to do it.
First way is to use javascript and it is relatively simple. You define
javascript function to control menu item status and call it as onload() at all
right pages with 2 parameters - item id and needed state. For example
<body onload="setmenu('first','disable')">
This way you can use for static html pages.
Gecko-based browsers (Firefox, SeaMonkey, Camino, and others) have the
user option to disable JavaScript from affecting context menus without
completely disabling JavaScript.

--
David Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Have you been using Netscape and now feel abandoned by AOL?
Then use SeaMonkey. Go to <http://www.seamonkey-project.org/>.
Jun 27 '08 #7
In article <67*************@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
Petr Vileta wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...il&btnG=Search
why frames are evil - Google Search
Yes, I know it, but original question was be about "How to do for frames"
;-)

If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?
(see Subject)

Welcome to Usenet. ;)
Welcome to the hysterical fundamentalisms that liken using frames to
shooting oneself.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #8
In article <34***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #9
dorayme wrote:
In article <34***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?

Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?
Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #10
In article <e1***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <34***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?

Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.
This is not at all obvious. What is obvious is that you have never been
to the NSW Royal Easter Show to see what a true blue can do with an axe
and fast!

Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #11
dorayme wrote:
In article <e1***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <34***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:

Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?
Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.

This is not at all obvious. What is obvious is that you have never been
to the NSW Royal Easter Show to see what a true blue can do with an axe
and fast!
No, but I *obviously* a true blue can do the same much faster and easier
with a saw.
>
Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe
Use them with both feet on the ground. Axes while in a tree is not a
good combination.
or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.
I use a bow saw.
>
The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.
If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the saw.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #12
dorayme wrote:
In article <e1***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>In article <34***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:

Again with my favorite analogy,
why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development of the
chainsaw?
Because it is easy to carry and much easier to sharpen and is much less
dangerous. Any other analogies?
Obviously you've never chopped down a tree with an ax.

This is not at all obvious. What is obvious is that you have never been
to the NSW Royal Easter Show to see what a true blue can do with an axe
and fast!
Ask that competition performer to keep that up all day long like that.
He can't. But he could with a chain saw. Ever hear the old folk song
"John Henry?"
Perhaps you have never climbed a tree to bring down a branch as thick as
a tree and taken up an axe or a simple bow saw for the job because these
are much easier and lighter and safer! A good bow saw cutting a branch
is easier than is supposed, the weight of the branch opening up the cut
nicely.
Nonsense. I have. Give me the chain saw every time. I'll do it faster
and easier.
The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.
No, it does not. The choice of tools, however, has nothing to do with
the existence of the tools. you are confusing, or deliberately
obfuscating, the differences.

Normally I ignore your faults in logic because you are being somehow
charming or amusing. Don't abuse the leeway you're being afforded.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Jun 27 '08 #13
In article <e4***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the [chain] saw.
Not if your big burly axe-murderer neighbour is asleep... (though there
is a remedy here, you cut so it falls over his bed-room and kill two ...)

Anyway, chainsaws remind me of the Irish migrant seeking work in an
Australian forestry company. Have you any experience asks the boss. No.
O well, look, 'ave a go but remember, it is piece work and goes by the
number of trees you fell. He hands him the chainsaw.

End of the day the boss asks him how many and Paddy says, well, just
one! The boss shakes his head and pays him a miserable amount and says
to come again if he really needs to! Paddy comes again next day and
manages two trees. The boss says to come next day and he will go out
with him to see if he can give him some tips on technique.

Day comes and they set out into the forest and the boss grabs the saw
and says "Now, watch my sawing angle and pressure..." as he pulls the
chord to start the thing. The Irishman jumps back in fright and screams
"What's that noise?"

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #14
dorayme wrote:
In article <e4***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.
If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the [chain] saw.
Actually just about *any* saw beats the ax in efficiency when felling a
tree.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #15
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
dorayme wrote:
>In article <e4***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>>dorayme wrote:

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of
simpler or older tools.

If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw
before you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the
[chain] saw.

Actually just about *any* saw beats the ax in efficiency when felling a
tree.
Oh and additionally, now that server-side is so cheap, developed, and
now ubiquitous, server-side inclusion beats frames in efficiency and
function in the same manner...there is no reason in my opinion to ever
use frames unless your are stuck with hosting that doesn't even offer
server-side, (but even that is a lame excuse with so many free servers
with php out there).

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #16
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrites:
Oh and additionally, now that server-side is so cheap, developed, and
now ubiquitous, server-side inclusion beats frames in efficiency and
function in the same manner...there is no reason in my opinion to ever
use frames unless your are stuck with hosting that doesn't even offer
server-side, (but even that is a lame excuse with so many free servers
with php out there).
That said, if you're only doing a bit of templating to replace frames,
an offline preprocessor is probably a better way to make the site. PHP
would be like using a chainsaw to chop through a twig, and about as
safe.

--
Chris
Jun 27 '08 #17
Chris Morris wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrites:
>Oh and additionally, now that server-side is so cheap, developed, and
now ubiquitous, server-side inclusion beats frames in efficiency and
function in the same manner...there is no reason in my opinion to ever
use frames unless your are stuck with hosting that doesn't even offer
server-side, (but even that is a lame excuse with so many free servers
with php out there).

That said, if you're only doing a bit of templating to replace frames,
an offline preprocessor is probably a better way to make the site. PHP
would be like using a chainsaw to chop through a twig, and about as
safe.
If we have a 1/2 dozen pages maybe, but every time you make a change an
edit your have to re-preprocess and upload the entire site gets old
really fast.

<html>
<head>...</head>
<body>
<?php
include_once('includes/banner.inc.php');
include_once('includes/nav.inc.php');
?>

.... rest of page ...

<?php include_once('includes/footer.inc.php'); ?>
</body>
</html>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #18

dorayme wrote:
In article <67*************@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
>If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?

Welcome to the hysterical
Hysterical? Hardly. You're the one who sounds hysterical.
fundamentalisms that liken using frames to
shooting oneself.
Um, it was only an example that better illustrates the *discussion* part
of this discussion group than merely stating "frames are bad".

You're only whining about it because it was I who said it.

--
Berg
Jun 27 '08 #19

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Chris Morris wrote:
>>
That said, if you're only doing a bit of templating to replace frames,
an offline preprocessor is probably a better way to make the site.

If we have a 1/2 dozen pages maybe, but every time you make a change an
edit your have to re-preprocess and upload the entire site
FWIW, I've been using a preprocessor for years. It's great for small
sites that only get periodic content changes. You only need to
re-preprocess everything if you make a change to one of the common
libraries, like the navbar. Changing text on a single page only needs
that one page redone.

I wouldn't recommend a preprocessor for a large site, but it's great for
smaller ones.
<body>
<?php
include_once('includes/banner.inc.php');
include_once('includes/nav.inc.php');
?>

... rest of page ...

<?php include_once('includes/footer.inc.php'); ?>
</body>
That's not really any different from my preprocessor includes, except
they're not php.

--
Berg
Jun 27 '08 #20
Bergamot wrote:
That's not really any different from my preprocessor includes, except
they're not php.
And you don't have to pre-process...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #21
Bergamot wrote:
Petr Vileta wrote:
>Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...il&btnG=Search
why frames are evil - Google Search

Yes, I know it, but original question was be about "How to do for
frames" ;-)

If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?
Maybe my English is too bad but I don't understand what you wanted to say.
Somebody asked a solution for frame style pages and I wrote my ideas. What I
did wrong?
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your
mail from another non-spammer site please.)

Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Jun 27 '08 #22
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Again with my favorite
analogy, why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development
of the chainsaw?
I don't know any lumberjack and don't know why he prefer to use ax instead of
chainsaw :-) Maybe he want to have well-developed body, maybe he don't like
roaring noise, maybe he don't have money to buy gasoline.
But back to IT world. Maybe author of question not have access to use server
side solution, maybe he not have knowledge to do it, maybe a pages are too
simple to solve it in other way then frames.
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your
mail from another non-spammer site please.)

Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Jun 27 '08 #23
Petr Vileta wrote:
But back to IT world. Maybe author of question not have access to use
server side solution,
Server side was rare and expensive in 1990s not common and cheap
maybe he not have knowledge to do it,
Tutorials up the "wazoo"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ls&btnG=Search
php tutorials - Google Search
maybe a
pages are too simple to solve it in other way then frames.
<frameset cols = "25%,*">
<frame src ="menu.htm" />
<frame src ="content.htm" />
</frameset>

vs

<?php include_once('menu.htm'); ?>
<div id="content">
<p>This page's content....


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #24
In article <1a***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <e4***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:

The development of the chain saw does not preclude the use of simpler or
older tools.

If the objective is to drop a tree, and there is an ax and a saw before
you, unless one is a masochist, the obvious choice is the [chain] saw.

Actually just about *any* saw beats the ax in efficiency when felling a
tree.
Personally, I prefer to carry an axe around wherever I go. Saw's are so
cumbersome, hard to sharpen, awkward to use, they simply do not have
that quick draw, ever ready to kill, quality about them that I need at
all times when I am away from my computer. Above all, you can't throw a
saw. Very important.

I am sorry, you really ought to allow a few nice frames sites to exist
and not stamp them out. Tell you what, as a special offer for 3 days
only, you can get a membership to Framepeace for $US 8.50. After you
have read the literature it puts out, carefully (there is a little
examination on this, small fee of $US 3.50 for entry) and your heart is
not shattered by some of the sad stories of once proud framed sites, I
will give you your money back (save a small admin fee, that is only
fair.)

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #25
In article <67*************@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <67*************@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?
Welcome to the hysterical idea that making the odd improvement
to an old framed site is like shooting oneself!

Hysterical? Hardly. You're the one who sounds hysterical.
Have you ever pondered the interesting distinction between being
hysterical and sounding so? A serious minded, compact delivery can be
the tip of an iceberg whose nature is very different. And vice versa.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #26
In article <fu***********@ns.felk.cvut.cz>,
"Petr Vileta" <st****@practisoft.czwrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Again with my favorite
analogy, why would a lumberjack cling to his ax after the development
of the chainsaw?
I don't know any lumberjack and don't know why he prefer to use ax instead of
chainsaw :-) Maybe he want to have well-developed body, maybe he don't like
roaring noise, maybe he don't have money to buy gasoline.
But back to IT world. Maybe author of question not have access to use server
side solution, maybe he not have knowledge to do it, maybe a pages are too
simple to solve it in other way then frames.
Maybe the chap already has a framed site and it is nice enough and he
just wants to make it a bit better. What's the matter with everyone when
it comes to frames. People seem to get all emotional! Chainsaws, axes,
guns. For God's sake, fellers, get a grip! It is just a website! Let OP
have it and help him.

Talking about helping, if OP is still around, I recommend he reads:

<http://www.markparnell.com.au/articles/frames.php>

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #27
In article <aa***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
Petr Vileta wrote:
But back to IT world. Maybe author of question not have access to use
server side solution,

Server side was rare and expensive in 1990s not common and cheap
maybe he not have knowledge to do it,

Tutorials up the "wazoo"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ls&btnG=Search
php tutorials - Google Search
maybe a
pages are too simple to solve it in other way then frames.

<frameset cols = "25%,*">
<frame src ="menu.htm" />
<frame src ="content.htm" />
</frameset>

vs

<?php include_once('menu.htm'); ?>
<div id="content">
<p>This page's content....
I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps the
menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply say use
includes and walk away!

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #28
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrites:
Chris Morris wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrites:
That said, if you're only doing a bit of templating to replace
frames, an offline preprocessor is probably a better way to make
the site. PHP would be like using a chainsaw to chop through a
twig, and about as safe.

If we have a 1/2 dozen pages maybe, but every time you make a change
an edit your have to re-preprocess and upload the entire site gets old
really fast.
Perhaps. The 'make' command comes in very useful. Set up the
dependencies, only rebuild the changed pages, and then automatically
move the new pages into place. The largest site I've maintained by
preprocessing had a few hundred pages and was easy enough to do.

--
Chris
Jun 27 '08 #29

Petr Vileta wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
>>
If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?
Maybe my English is too bad but I don't understand what you wanted to say.
Sorry. "Shoot yourself in the foot" means you are doing something bad to
yourself.

The point is that this is a discussion group, not a help desk. If
somebody posts a question about how to do something that we consider a
bad practice, most of the regular posters here would rather tell them
why it is bad and show them better solutions instead of giving the
answer they wanted to hear.
Somebody asked a solution for frame style pages and I wrote my ideas.
We don't want to encourage frames. There are almost always better ways
to do whatever the poster wants to do.

--
Berg
Jun 27 '08 #30
Petr Vileta wrote:
maybe a pages are too simple to solve it in other way then frames.
Jonathan N. Little <lw*****@central.netwrote:
<frameset cols = "25%,*">
<frame src ="menu.htm" />
<frame src ="content.htm" />
</frameset>
Don't forget the noframes content. And to make your content bookmarkable,
you'll need multiple frameset documents. And watch out for orphaned content
pages. And all your menu documents (and possibly some of your content
documents) will need to target their links. And so on.
vs

<?php include_once('menu.htm'); ?>
<div id="content">
<p>This page's content....
Authors who want the menu links to stay in place while the content scrolls
will also need a style sheet, but the markup for that can be put in a
common include file.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Warning: Dates in the calendar are closer than they appear."
Jun 27 '08 #31
In article <67*************@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
Petr Vileta wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
>
If you asked how you could shoot yourself in the foot, don't you think
we'd rather talk you out of it than provide step-by-step instructions?
Maybe my English is too bad but I don't understand what you wanted to say.

Sorry. "Shoot yourself in the foot" means you are doing something bad to
yourself.

The point is that this is a discussion group, not a help desk. If
somebody posts a question about how to do something that we consider a
bad practice, most of the regular posters here would rather tell them
why it is bad and show them better solutions instead of giving the
answer they wanted to hear.
Somebody asked a solution for frame style pages and I wrote my ideas.

We don't want to encourage frames. There are almost always better ways
to do whatever the poster wants to do.
Telling someone how to solve a problem in frames is not encouraging
frames. You think so because of a hysterical view of the matter (that it
is like advising someone how best to shoot oneself in the foot but not
to do too much damage).

And the other bit is particularly weak, there are always better ways to
do most things.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #32
In article <d3***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps the
menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply say use
includes and walk away!

That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you do
not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you wish
with CSS and position: fixed.
Actually, no one except you is going into tired old arguments. You and
Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing about
frames or helping someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging them or
backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of the wrong
stick.

If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball. It plays ball with
frames. Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.

Bottom line is that you and others refuse to acknowledge the simple
advantages of frames, the cross browser support hitherto.

I will say it again, folk should not get hysterical when a few odd folk
come along here wanting to maintain and improve their frames site. Let
them have them. Worry when there is a threat of an epidemic. It is
hysterical over-reaction to talk as if this threat was real every time
someone comes along about frames.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #33
rf
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
And the other bit is particularly weak, there are always better ways
to do most things.
In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.
--
Richard
Killing all threads involving google groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Jun 27 '08 #34
dorayme wrote:
If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball.
No, but it does degrade gracefully.
It plays ball with
frames.
For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the
page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.
Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.
What jerking?
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #35
rf
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
In article <d3***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps
the menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply
say use includes and walk away!

That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you
do not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you
wish with CSS and position: fixed.

Actually, no one except you is going into tired old arguments. You and
Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing
about frames or helping someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging
them or backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of
the wrong stick.

Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness
associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with
frames.
IE6 does not "jerk" when simulating position: fixed, if you do it right.

Here are a couple of the many ways:

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/fixed.html
http://www.nowcss.com/javascript/emu...-in-ie-6-below
--
Richard
Killing all threads involving google groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Jun 27 '08 #36
In article <Bv*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.
In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #37
In article <31***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball.

No, but it does degrade gracefully.
It plays ball with
frames.

For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the
page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.
Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.

What jerking?
At some stage in the history of the world Spartanicus said:

"Apart from the obvious inefficient use of screen space, fixed elements
or backgrounds can make scrolling slow and jerky, especially when using
the keyboard. I've got my keyboard repeat delay set to the minimum and
the repeat rate set to the maximum, the movement occurs in smaller steps
and in a higher frequency compared to scrolling with the mouse wheel or
dragging a scrollbar, this emphasizes the problem."

Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #38
rf
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
AB*******************@web.aioe.org:
In article <Bv*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
>In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.

In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.
Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.
Search engine bots do not work *perfectly* well.

I would rather have pages that are found correctly in the search engines
and which my viewers can return to easily when they wish. Framed pages
don't support either.

Here is a random page from one of the eighteen million pages out there that
contain the phrase "your browser does not support frames":

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornit...ibit/title.htm

Where is their navigation?

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Jun 27 '08 #39
In article <Dn*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
In article <d3***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:

I just love how folks fail to address the fact that frames keeps
the menu from scrolling away in a natural manner. You can't simply
say use includes and walk away!


That old argument it getting really tired. It is predicated that you
do not have any options when in fact it can be accomplished if you
wish with CSS and position: fixed.
Actually, no one except you is going into tired old arguments. You and
Bergamot and others seem to think that saying the least good thing
about frames or helping someone to fix the odd problem is encouraging
them or backing some side in old arguments. You have the wrong end of
the wrong stick.

Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness
associated with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with
frames.

IE6 does not "jerk" when simulating position: fixed, if you do it right.

Here are a couple of the many ways:

http://www.cssplay.co.uk/layouts/fixed.html
http://www.nowcss.com/javascript/emu...-in-ie-6-below
My recollection was that it was not just about IE. But good on rf for
supplying these urls...

(btw, this is a side issue to the main one, this being this
determination of everyone here to commit framicide. Perfect and better
alterntaive technologies do not justify the elimination of every single
use of frames. No more than that mother should throw out her first born
because the second is better in all particular respects.

You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #40
In article <6T*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
AB*******************@web.aioe.org:
In article <Bv*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.
In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.

Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.
You jump straight into a misunderstanding like a moth. You are all
brainwashed earthlings (have you and Jonathan and Bergamot got your arms
stretched out in front of you right now and walking in a straight line?)
<g>

I said many things work perfectly well. So you take this as an
opportunity to say what does *not* work well! Good one, mate!

You do this, as do others, because the issue of being less hysterical
about frames is simply not on your radar. How, you think, can a sensible
person nowadays not wholly detest and despise and want their total
annihilation? If you send me $A10 I will send you out some literature
from my organization Framepeace which is dedicated to protecting the few
endangered framed sites around.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #41
In article <6T*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornit...ibit/title.htm

Where is their navigation?
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ornithology/default.htm

Richard, you cannot make some important general argument out of a site
that has not done its very best by frames. The Engish translation of the
Aritotelian quasi logical fault of this is translated roughly as
follows:

Do not base much on straw men.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #42
dorayme wrote:
In article <6T*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
>dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
AB*******************@web.aioe.org:
>>In article <Bv*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:

In the case of frames it is not just a better way, it is a way that
actually works.
In the case of frames, many things work *perfectly* well. And when
something works perfectly well it is an actual perfection, not some
chimera.
Bookmarking does not work *perfectly* well.

You jump straight into a misunderstanding like a moth. You are all
brainwashed earthlings (have you and Jonathan and Bergamot got your arms
stretched out in front of you right now and walking in a straight line?)
<g>

I said many things work perfectly well. So you take this as an
opportunity to say what does *not* work well! Good one, mate!

You do this, as do others, because the issue of being less hysterical
about frames is simply not on your radar. How, you think, can a sensible
person nowadays not wholly detest and despise and want their total
annihilation? If you send me $A10 I will send you out some literature
from my organization Framepeace which is dedicated to protecting the few
endangered framed sites around.
I think that anyone should be allowed unfettered ability to design a Web
site as they wish. (If it works, it works. If it doesn't, well, it's
their site.)

As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
their choices in so choosing.

As should you be allowed to run an organization to support what many of
us view as a flawed design philosophy.

Eventually, the failings of the design philosophy will either become
apparent to those using it or it won't matter.

Incessantly arguing about it will also, hopefully, eventually, become
nonsensical. But, probably not.

Frames are not evil. No souls are sent to hell because of their use.
But they are silly (the frames, not the souls). And fraught with
problems. So, a sensible person should, at least, say: "Well, ya
really don't wanna do that ..." Reasonably, one would hope, and in a
way that would convince rather than berate. Cajole instead of denigrate.

Ok. Why can't we all just get along? Let's now all sing Kumbaya!

Or, let's all just allow ourselves to be as odd as we like. To that end
I offer up:

http://edmullen.net/temp/06-2003Satu...nMyFashion.mp3

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.
Jun 27 '08 #43
dorayme wrote:
In article <31***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
>dorayme wrote:
>>If you are going to go into tired old arguments, go into them. Mention
that fixed has problems, IE6 does not play ball.
No, but it does degrade gracefully.
>>It plays ball with
frames.
For the one and only "virtue" a statically positioned portion of the
page. As long as you overlook all the ugly flaws.
>>Mention that Spartanicus has or noticed the jerkiness associated
with fixed on general scrolling. IE 6 does not jerk with frames.
What jerking?

At some stage in the history of the world Spartanicus said:

"Apart from the obvious inefficient use of screen space, fixed elements
or backgrounds can make scrolling slow and jerky, especially when using
the keyboard. I've got my keyboard repeat delay set to the minimum and
the repeat rate set to the maximum, the movement occurs in smaller steps
and in a higher frequency compared to scrolling with the mouse wheel or
dragging a scrollbar, this emphasizes the problem."
Firstly, did you try my example? What jerking keyboard or otherwise.

Secondly, I was not suggesting and JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.
Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>
I am not suggesting the use of fixed navigation, that was your
suggestion for the absolute need of frames. I was just refuting your
claim that frames is the only viable way to do it and therefore frames
are needed for new sites. I say not so, can be done with CSS, and you
only leave old IE6 in the lurch. Not really though because the site will
still be accessible, not so with frames and text-only apps like Lynx.

My site's "Bouncing Betty" is JavaScript not CSS. I am not advocating
that either. My new version site I am working on it is history. I want
to reclaim the wasted 170px on the left.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 27 '08 #44
In article <xN******************************@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.netwrote:
As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
their choices in so choosing.
There is an issue in this that has nothing to do with allowing. It is
about the appropriateness of bringing out the big guns and blazing away
at the mere mention of a small problem with a framed site.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #45
rf
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
69*******************@web.aioe.org:

[frames]
You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.
You don't get it, do you?

If a page can not be indexed correctly by the search engines then that page
is IMHO terribly broken. And google itself state quite up front that they
have trouble indexing framed pages.

If a page can not be referred to by name (instead of, say, "go to
example.com and press the [this is the page I mean] menu button) then that
page is terribly broken.

If an existing page is broken then it should be fixed. That way somebody
may be actaully able to find it some day.

If it is a new page (as I suspect) then it should not be using frames for
all the reasons discussed at length all over usenet[1]. I doubt this is a
legacy site, given the actual question and the source. However as the OP
appears to be a drive by google groper I guess we'll never know :-)

Lets de-cloud the issue by considering the OP's question.

OP has dug himself into a trench by using frames and suddenly wanting to do
what everybody else does and that is, I presume, disable or otherwise
change the menu item for the current page. Well, everybody else does this
server side with modern technology, and it is a blindingly simple task,
just an if statement around each echo that builds the menu, elapsed time to
write: 10 minutes (PHP assumed).

What the OP wants is very difficult to do with a standard framed page.

One could throw a truckload of client side javascript at it but to what
end? Simpler to write those if statements, which work for 100% of the
viewers.

It would be quite difficult to do server side. At the time the server is
asked to provide the menu "page" it has no idea at all which other "pages"
are being pulled to make up the framed page. One could perform all sorts of
skullduggery with sessions and what not to determine this, or perhaps build
a seperate frameset for each and every "page" on the site, pulling in a
different menu "page" for each (posibly via get variables), but to what
end. The energy expended in all of this would be far greater than that
required to simply serve up a suitable non-framed page using the odd if
statement. Probably greater than re-writing the site without frames.

Given the OP's requirements, as stated in his post, and all else aside,
frames are *not* the correct tool for this job.
[1] For any benifit you can possibly come up with *for* using frames it can
be quite easily demonstrated that said benifit can be easily achieved
*without* using frames. Including the dreaded use-up-canvas "fixed" menu.

--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Jun 27 '08 #46
rf
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
62*******************@web.aioe.org:
In article <xN******************************@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.netwrote:
>As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
their choices in so choosing.

There is an issue in this that has nothing to do with allowing. It is
about the appropriateness of bringing out the big guns and blazing away
at the mere mention of a small problem with a framed site.
You think not being able to be indexed correctly by the search engines a
"small problem"?
--
Richard
Killing all google groups posts
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Jun 27 '08 #47
In article <fc**************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <31***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
... I was not suggesting any JS workarounds for IE6, just let is
degrade. When old IE6 users scroll the page the navbar scrolls away with
it, Big whoop! Not catastrophic, most site work that way anyhow.
I am not the one making a *big* issue of this. I just mentioned that in
a framed site you do not have to mess about or have anything degrade to
get a fixed menu.
Here is a man who was no fan of fixed navigation, true, but pretty
knowledgeable. I know how you all like arguments from authority. <g>

I am not suggesting the use of fixed navigation, that was your
suggestion for the absolute need of frames.
Wrong completely and utterly. I have never suggested any absolute need
for either fixed navigation nor for any technology that delivers it. I
am just saying it can be a nice feature (for short menus - btw) of
frames and it falls naturally* out of it without special need to do
anything. You are getting all 'absolutely' and 'thingy' about it! I can
see everyone rushing to your side in this argument. But the question is
about how hard to go into someone who comes here with a simple question
about frames not about what frames can do that something else can do
better or worse.
I was just refuting your
claim that frames is the only viable way to do it
I never made such a claim. You are twisting the meaning of "viable" and
putting words in my voice-throw-speaker. You are preparing the ground,
cunningly to allow *less than wholly satisfying implementations*.

and therefore frames
are needed for new sites. I say not so, can be done with CSS, and you
only leave old IE6 in the lurch.
This is absolutely classical. You are happy to leave 32% of people in
the lurch. If it was someone else who said this, you would be straight
down their throats. But because this is a frames discussion, you adopt a
more heartless approach. Shame on you Jonathan! I know Bergamot is a
hard man with no conscience. But you? I would never have thought I would
hear such a thing!

---------------
* "falls naturally" means it is built into the technology, it is not
some special dongle that you have to add. Think the way gravity falls
out of *general* relativity theory as being a consequence of space and
time and rather than some special extra entity or force. Therein lies
its great beauty. You are all blind for one reason or another to the
great natural elegance of frames, why the hell do you think it has had
such a mesmerizing effect on folk long after NS itself dropped it for
its own site (according to rf).

I am annoyed that I have had to give you this juicy little tidbit for
free from my Framepeace literature. If you have any conscience, if any
of you have, you will damn well send me at least $US1.50.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #48
In article <_F*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
62*******************@web.aioe.org:
In article <xN******************************@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.netwrote:
As much as anyone else should be allowed to point out the failings of
their choices in so choosing.
There is an issue in this that has nothing to do with allowing. It is
about the appropriateness of bringing out the big guns and blazing away
at the mere mention of a small problem with a framed site.

You think not being able to be indexed correctly by the search engines a
"small problem"?

There are ways to lessen the problem without going to the absolute
extreme of not using frames.

For many small sites, yes, I think it a very small problem. You seem to
think that everyone on this earth who makes a site wants desperately to
be known to all and fast! This is simply not true. Some sites are not
easily found no matter how well done they are, lost in the welter of
noise and guess what, it *does not matter*.

But let me go further. Please, people with weak stomachs or in a
particularly sensitive state caused by frame discussions, do not read on.

There is a whole world of websites that none of you has the least idea
of. I have another organization called "SiteHide" which details a
cultish practice. That of publishing but getting as close to zero
visitors as possible. The aim is to throw Google off. Google is not your
friend in this cult. It is your enemy. "Google is your enemy" is a
phrase that we SiteHiders often use in discussing issues.

The sort of questions that come up on the SiteHide bulletin board often
run along the lines of "Please help, 5 people saw my site today. Where
did I go wrong? How can I at least reduce this number?"

(If any of you are interested, I can send you an application form. There
are some small fees involved)

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #49
In article <kE*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
rf <rf@x.invalidwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in news:doraymeRidThis-
69*******************@web.aioe.org:

[frames]
You don't get it do you? An existing framed site has a right to life.
You should all top denigrating them to the point of framicide.

You don't get it, do you?

If a page can not be indexed correctly by the search engines then that page
is IMHO terribly broken. And google itself ...
I have never denied the downsides. I just am not willing to be as harsh
in my emotions towards these poor injured birds as you and Jonathan and
cold-heated Bergamot.
>
Lets de-cloud the issue by considering the OP's question.
O well if you are going to be like this and get down to the actual
question...

I was fighting on a broader front. I am not denying that many folk are
not better off without a framed site. I gave up a nice framed site and
am very glad I did. But what is good for individuals is not necessarily
good for the society. I say a few frames around enriches us all. This is
what you don't get.
>
[1] For any benifit you can possibly come up with *for* using frames it can
be quite easily demonstrated that said benifit can be easily achieved
*without* using frames. Including the dreaded use-up-canvas "fixed" menu.

A couple of points on this Richard:

First, most nav side panels that scroll still use up the viewport space
with nothing at all to see.

Second, anything my car and old cars can do, modern cars can do better
in an efficiency sense. But the absence of old cars would be a great
shame.

There is more than modern efficiency at stake. There is a whole world
outside of this to which you - poor things - are blind.

--
dorayme
Jun 27 '08 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.