how to emulate frames with CSS in Internet Explorer?

[tomasio]

Dear Group,

I managed to simulate framelike behaviour in mozilla-based browsers by
now, but it doesn't work out with Internet Explorer 6.

Could someone glance through the code on the Test-Webpages I created
and maybe leave me a hint what I have to change to make the CSS-based
Layout (1) look like the Frames-based Layout (2)?

This is how it looks like:
(1) http://tomasio.laudatio.com/temp/Cb_meyerframes.html

This is how I'd like it to appear in IE:
(2) http://tomasio.laudatio.com/temp/Frametest_HTML.html

---

the next thing what i wanted you to ask:
does emulating frames with CSS make sense at all, or is it better to
stick to Frames?

thank you in advance for your help

--
kind regards,
tomasio
"describing an issue reveals the way to solve it"

[Steve Pugh]

tomasio <da****@jan.et> wrote:

I managed to simulate framelike behaviour in mozilla-based browsers by
now, but it doesn't work out with Internet Explorer 6.

Could someone glance through the code on the Test-Webpages I created
and maybe leave me a hint what I have to change to make the CSS-based
Layout (1) look like the Frames-based Layout (2)?

This is how it looks like:
(1) http://tomasio.laudatio.com/temp/Cb_meyerframes.html

This is how I'd like it to appear in IE:
(2) http://tomasio.laudatio.com/temp/Frametest_HTML.html
IE doesn't support position: fixed. In your case position: fixed isn't
needed anyway, so use position: absolute instead. You also need to
make a few more changes.

Here's a version that works more or less the same in IE, Opera and
Gecko: http://steve.pugh.net/test/frames.html

The fact that the code needs to trigger quirks mode in order to work
could be a warning of some sort...
the next thing what i wanted you to ask:
does emulating frames with CSS make sense at all, or is it better to
stick to Frames?

Frames have a lot or problems and avoiding them is always a good move.

Some of the problems of frames (bookmarking, search engines, broken
back buttons, etc.) are related to the functionality of frames ans
thus a CSS replacement avoids those issues, but it also avoids the
benefits (e.g. avoiding repeated downloading of common content).

However, some of the problems of frames are due to their on screen
appearance (wasted screen space for example) and a CSS emulation is
going to emulate these problems.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[tomasio]

Thanx a lot for your help, steve. if I can do anything for you in
return, let me know.
--
kind regards,
tomasio
"describing an issue reveals the way to solve it"

[Mr.Clean]

<SNIP>

Here's a version that works more or less the same in IE, Opera and
Gecko: http://steve.pugh.net/test/frames.html

<SNIP>

Well, this doesn't emulate frames at all. Frames allow you to place
other pages inside of them and you can not do that with the design
you have.

[tomasio]

Mr.Clean <mrclean@p&g.com> schrieb:

Well, this doesn't emulate frames at all. Frames allow you to place
other pages inside of them and you can not do that with the design
you have.

Steve understood what I wanted to reach. I wanted to have a page with
some block elements stay in position (e.g. a top navigation bar),
while other ones (the content area) is scrollable as soon the content
is larger than the viewport.

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:42:10 GMT, Mr.Clean <mrclean@p&g.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

Here's a version that works more or less the same in IE, Opera and
Gecko: http://steve.pugh.net/test/frames.html

Well, this doesn't emulate frames at all.
Since it was not intended to; that page gives a "visual appearance" of
the dead end "frames" technique. Just in the same way as my own...

http://css.nu/exp/nf-illustration.html

Mine does not "work" in IE (any version) but I'm not in this business to
pat BG's back in the first place.
Frames allow you to place other pages inside of them...

Yea; it even allows you to "steal" other peoples web sites to appear
inside whatever rudimentary effort you may have of your own, to make it
appear as you are one hell of a guy on creating webs :-)

The basic is...

"Frames" was "invented" by Netscape in mid 90'ies. It got based on a bad
approach to network technology and became a dead end from the start of
it, and it went downhill from there.

P.S.
Q? have you ever seen a frame site being properly indexed and searchable
through any one of our most popular indexers? Well? Thought not! :-)

--
Rex

[Spartanicus]

Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:

Q? have you ever seen a frame site being properly indexed and searchable
through any one of our most popular indexers? Well? Thought not! :-)

When comparing a CSS and a Framed implementation of the same layout,
contrary to popular belief *all* disadvantages of using frames that are
relevant to users can be avoided if constructed properly.

Very few make that effort, and it almost always takes a lot of extra
effort from the developer, but that's another issue.

The framed version even has some advantages over a CSS based solution
such as correct viewport/pane PgUp/PgDwn scrolling.

--
Spartanicus

[Wolfgang Wildeblood]

Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:

Q? have you ever seen a frame site being properly indexed and searchable
through any one of our most popular indexers? Well? Thought not! :-)

That's a common (practical) argument against frames, but it's also a
technically bogus one. It says nothing about frames but speaks volumes
about just how primitive search spiders actually are.

[Steve Pugh]

Mr.Clean <mrclean@p&g.com> wrote:

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

Here's a version that works more or less the same in IE, Opera and
Gecko: http://steve.pugh.net/test/frames.html
Well, this doesn't emulate frames at all.

It emulates the appearance of them, which is all you can expect from
CSS.

And did you not bother to look at the OP's page which was heading in
the same direction but just needed a little tweak to work in IE?

And did you not bother to read the rest of my post where I explained
the difference between the functional and presentational aspects of
frames?
Frames allow you to place
other pages inside of them and you can not do that with the design
you have.

Yawn. Better done with some for of preprocessor or SSI anyway.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:

Q? have you ever seen a frame site being properly indexed and searchable
through any one of our most popular indexers? Well? Thought not! :-)

That's a common (practical) argument against frames, but it's also a
technically bogus one. It says nothing about frames but speaks volumes
about just how primitive search spiders actually are.

Then you'll be able to show us how to create a URL which reproduces a
particular configuration of a frameset? In general I don't believe
you can. And if not, then what do you reckon your non-primitive
indexer is supposed to return as its result?

[Mr.Clean]

In article <d5********************************@4ax.com>, da****@jan.et
says...

Mr.Clean <mrclean@p&g.com> schrieb:

Well, this doesn't emulate frames at all. Frames allow you to place
other pages inside of them and you can not do that with the design
you have.

Steve understood what I wanted to reach. I wanted to have a page with
some block elements stay in position (e.g. a top navigation bar),
while other ones (the content area) is scrollable as soon the content
is larger than the viewport.

But he shouldn't have said that it emulated frames. What I'm getting at
is that frames allow you to keep static info, static and change the
content accordingly. His approach doesn't allow that.

[Neal]

On 9 Jun 2004 01:13:17 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wo****************@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:

Q? have you ever seen a frame site being properly indexed and searchable
through any one of our most popular indexers? Well? Thought not! :-)

That's a common (practical) argument against frames, but it's also a
technically bogus one. It says nothing about frames but speaks volumes
about just how primitive search spiders actually are.

If this is true, we must choose between unilaterally improving the spiders
or fixing our design to match their capabilities. Which can you do?

[Eric B. Bednarz]

tomasio <da****@jan.et> writes:

I managed to simulate framelike behaviour in mozilla-based browsers by
now, but it doesn't work out with Internet Explorer 6.

The (more or less) technical answer is:

<http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/>

The clue-enhanced answer is:

Stop wanting that.
--
| ) 111010111011 | http://bednarz.nl/
-(
| ) Distribute me: http://binaries.bednarz.nl/mp3/aicha