An alternative to framesets?

[geekifyer]

So I was wondering, what possible replacements are there for the frameset? Because I just want to have my menu and article column be static and not have to be reloaded again, all I really want to be changed is the main content in the page. I understand framesets are, and have been looked down upon for quite some time; quite litterally I don't like them myself. Is it possible to make a div with the contents of that div being a DHTML file?

I want to find an alternative to framesets, while still having relatively small amounts of code, and not having to go through 8-12 pages when I want to edit the menu or articles column.

help?

[tharden3]

can't you solve this by experimenting with the static/absolute/relavtive/fixed functions? I guess maybe you could put those in combination with a div, but I'm not sure. You'd have to try it I guess.

[oler1s]

There isn’t any direct replacement for a frameset. If you’re looking to include one HTML document within another, without using a frameset, it is not possible. You cannot divide your HTML document through HTML alone. Yes, this incurs bandwidth penalties when parts of your site are unchanging. You can reduce the penalty by properly using CSS and keeping the HTML to markup only.

With larger sites, the pages are compiled on the fly. This is done with the help of server side programming. If you’re looking for a pure HTML solution, you’re out of luck.

To keep a webpage static and reload only a portion of it, AJAX can be used. But this is not like HTML either. A significant amount of programming and work must be done on both the server and client side, and you need to have a certain level of technical expertise.

[geekifyer]

There isn’t any direct replacement for a frameset. If you’re looking to include one HTML document within another, without using a frameset, it is not possible. You cannot divide your HTML document through HTML alone. Yes, this incurs bandwidth penalties when parts of your site are unchanging. You can reduce the penalty by properly using CSS and keeping the HTML to markup only.

With larger sites, the pages are compiled on the fly. This is done with the help of server side programming. If you’re looking for a pure HTML solution, you’re out of luck.

To keep a webpage static and reload only a portion of it, AJAX can be used. But this is not like HTML either. A significant amount of programming and work must be done on both the server and client side, and you need to have a certain level of technical expertise.

Thanks ^^, although I am not looking for a pure HTML answer. As of now, I am currently teaching myself javascript and PHP. However my skills of both languages as of now are remarkably low. How would I accomplish this with CSS?

[oler1s]

How would I accomplish this with CSS?

I think you misunderstand me. CSS does not present you an alternative to framesets. I mentioned CSS as one way to reduce the bandwidth penalty of sending out similar content. If two pages use the same CSS file, said CSS file won't be requested twice, saving you a bit of bandwidth.

[geekifyer]

I think you misunderstand me. CSS does not present you an alternative to framesets. I mentioned CSS as one way to reduce the bandwidth penalty of sending out similar content. If two pages use the same CSS file, said CSS file won't be requested twice, saving you a bit of bandwidth.

okay, thanks ^^. Well, currently I am learning Ajax so, maybe I'll be able to figure out a way through that. What do you think?

[acoder]

That's one way assuming everyone has JavaScript enabled. On the server-side, you could use SSI Server-Side Includes, if supported, or use the server-side language to include the files on each page, e.g. header, footer.

[geekifyer]

That's one way assuming everyone has JavaScript enabled. On the server-side, you could use SSI Server-Side Includes, if supported, or use the server-side language to include the files on each page, e.g. header, footer.

I need to learn more about SSI, and also couldn't you create a server where all the necessary resources are installed there, and utilzed there? So if say a spider of the web were to come to the site, they wouldn't need to have everything installed.

how would that effect the loading time?
I hope that the users don't have java disabled.

[acoder]

Server-side Includes should probably be enough for your requirements. If you need something more advanced, use a server-side language.