frames attributes

[Jonathan Carmichael]

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 "FRAMEBORDE R"
Line 16, column 46: there is no attribute "BORDER"
Line 16, column 63: there is no attribute "FRAMESPACI NG"

In reading up on the above url I found no such attribute as "border" or
"framespaci ng". I did find "frameborde r", "marginwidt h", and
"marginheig ht". 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
"framespaci ng" 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="nores ize">
<frame src="sg_top.htm l" name="B" scrolling="no" noresize="nores ize">
</frameset>
<frameset cols="164,*" frameborder="0" border="0" framespacing="0 ">
<frame src="sg_menu.ht ml" name="C" scrolling="auto " noresize="nores ize">
<frame src="main.html" name="D" scrolling="auto " noresize="nores ize">
</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/solidgroundband/solid_ground_main_page.html

Thank you,
Jonathan

[David Dorward]

Re: frames attributes

Jonathan Carmichael wrote:
[color=blue]
> I am building a website for the first time. In attempting to validate
> my frameset html file[/color]

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?Problems_with_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

[Neal]

Re: frames attributes

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:30:52 -0400, Jonathan Carmichael
<jonathancarmic hael@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> My website is
> http://members.cox.net/solidgroundba...main_page.html[/color]

I've mixed the order of your post up for my reply.
[color=blue]
> I am building a website for the first time.[/color]

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.

[Jonathan Carmichael]

Re: frames attributes

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

[Neal]

Re: frames attributes

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 07:12:40 -0400, Jonathan Carmichael
<jonathancarmic hael@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Wow! There are obviously some strong opinions here. Fortunately
> designing web pages is not my life.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> I just decided to try to put one together for my band about a week ago
> in my spare time (which isn't much).[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> 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?[/color]

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.

[Sam Hughes]

Re: frames attributes

Jonathan Carmichael <jonathancarmic hael@cox.net> wrote in
news:PaW0d.2417 9$ni.14963@okep read01:
[color=blue]
> Would you mind giving me the short version on frames? Why
> are frames bad? Thank you,
> Jonathan[/color]

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 :)

[Jonathan Carmichael]

Re: frames attributes



Sam Hughes wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

That makes sense. Thank you! :)

[Neal]

Re: frames attributes

On 12 Sep 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Sam Hughes <hughes@rpi.edu > wrote:
[color=blue]
> As for the Under Construction logo... it's just a matter of his tastes
> versus yours.[/color]

But my tastes are always correct! ;)
[color=blue]
> Of course, theoretically, good Web sites never cease to be
> under construction :)[/color]

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.

[AES/newspost]

Re: frames attributes

In article <Xns95629C6C320 06hughesrpiedu@ 130.133.1.4>,
Sam Hughes <hughes@rpi.edu > wrote:
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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)

[Neal]

Re: frames attributes

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:40:44 -0700, AES/newspost <siegman@stanfo rd.edu>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> 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"".[/color]

New windows are a usability problem.
[color=blue]
> 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)[/color]

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.

[Mark Parnell]

Re: frames attributes

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:40:44 -0700, AES/newspost <siegman@stanfo rd.edu>
declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

So getting to any part of the actual content of your site requires
navigating through two levels of menus? Your site structure needs
rethinking.
[color=blue]
> 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"".[/color]

Not here it doesn't. It opens it in the same window, with no navigation.
[color=blue]
> 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,[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> or a "back to
> home" link I may put on the content page,[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> This certainly functions well, for me and the user -- what the h-ll is
> "evil" about it?[/color]

Besides what I've mentioned above, opening new windows is not a good
idea either.

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html

[color=blue]
> 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?[/color]

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?
[color=blue]
> (and without having to learn SSI, CGI, PHP, ASP, PDQ, QDP,
> QPD, PQD, etc, which I'm definitely not interested in having to do)[/color]

I'm not familiar with any but the first 4 of those ;-)

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Include_one_file_in_another

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Sam Hughes]

Re: frames attributes

Mark Parnell <webmaster@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote in news:gy2y3yqqkn pi
$.1c6g1qa1v3v1p .dlg@40tude.net :
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:40:44 -0700, AES/newspost <siegman@stanfo rd.edu>
> declared in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>[color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
> So getting to any part of the actual content of your site requires
> navigating through two levels of menus? Your site structure needs
> rethinking.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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"".[/color]
>
> Not here it doesn't. It opens it in the same window, with no
> navigation.[/color]

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.

[Sam Hughes]

Re: frames attributes

AES/newspost <siegman@stanfo rd.edu> wrote in
news:siegman-B1564F.21404412 092004@news.sta nford.edu:
[color=blue]
> 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)[/color]

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.t xt" -->

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.

[Stephen Poley]

Re: frames attributes

On 14 Sep 2004 17:56:44 GMT, Sam Hughes <hughes@rpi.edu > wrote:
[color=blue]
>AES/newspost <siegman@stanfo rd.edu> wrote in
>news:siegman-B1564F.21404412 092004@news.sta nford.edu:
>[color=green]
>> 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)[/color]
>
>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.t xt" -->
>
>Tada![/color]

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/

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: frames attributes

JRS: In article <Xns95629C6C320 06hughesrpiedu@ 130.133.1.4>, dated Sun,
12 Sep 2004 19:22:36, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html,
Sam Hughes <hughes@rpi.edu > posted :
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]


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.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.