I seem to be having a problem with putting a <IFRAME> inside of a table with the netscape browser. Is ideas on this one?
Printable View
I seem to be having a problem with putting a <IFRAME> inside of a table with the netscape browser. Is ideas on this one?
I don't think netscape supports Iframes. though I they may have implimented it in new versions
Try ILayer for Netscape, IFrame isnt supported
Hummm.. What if you want to show the same thing on many, many pages?Quote:
Originally posted by ubunreal69
unless you have a realllllly good reason, i wouldnt reccomend using Frames for anything @ all, they only give troubles and are a complete waste of time; on all my life i have only seen one page that seems to have benefitted form them in a usefull way: Mail.yahoo.com (Yahoo mail service) :)
Hes got a point, Frames are pretty bad.
You could either use soemthing like dreamweavers feature to update all pages with a template or, more easily, use Server-Side Includes
Includes can't be used for every situation. Assuming you know the difference between FRAME and IFRAME...
I agree, I think SSI's are the best way to go about this.
<td><!--#include file "include.asp"--></td>
;)
lol, ur funny :) . well, u probably have one of those "exceptional" sites :pQuote:
Originally posted by DKCK
Hummm.. What if you want to show the same thing on many, many pages?
NS6+ supports Iframe. although I agree with everyone else as to not use frames or Iframes.
whats the diff between "Frame" & "Iframe" ?
Frames are just standard frames like yahoo mail use.
But iFrame is embedded into your document and creates a frame inside the page.
Sorry hard to explain.
Hope this helps n e ways,
;)
Iframe is what I uploaded. a framed site is like yahoo mail.
ok, i think, i understand now. "frame" is like frameset, divides the screen up into sections. "Iframe" is just creating a "Window" sort of frame inside a table or just somewhere on the page. correct me if i am wrong :D
btw. "sotusotusotu" ur explanartion wasnt bad :p I'm not good at explaining things either ;)
please, for the sake of a users sanity, us SSI :(
If you have a page with a navigation, a display area (where the actual pages are showing) and a news area.
Then you have to load the navigation, the page and the news every time the page is replaced without using frames??
This can really slow things down, not every one sits on a DSL or higger connection....
I know that frames are not a good solution, but its a pretty good solution if you dont want the navigation and the news section to reload every time the user clicks on a navigation button.
/Smirre
There is of course a chance that the people with sucky connections have outdated browsers :p
Personally I like frames and see nothing wrong with them when used sensibly.
I saw a serious academic site once which had nine frames on it; that's a tad excessive, although there were good reasons for having that many. Normally 2 or perhaps 3 at the most are fine.
I'm not too keen on IFRAMES though, they're messy.
I concur with Mark. What is so wrong in having a thin "navigation" frame somewhere which never moves when the main part is scrolled?
Makes life a bit easier for the visitor IMO.
Thats OK. Its when they get abused thats the problem. You go to someones site, click a link and then you get stuck inside their frameset. Its annoying. They also make DHTML coding really difficult at times.Quote:
What is so wrong in having a thin "navigation" frame somewhere which never moves when the main part is scrolled?
I really dont have a problem with using frames when there is a use, like Hotmail.
that's just their poor coding/thought though, not a reason to dismiss all framed sites as a piece of crap. Not suggesting you were but it seems all anyone seems to do is diss them.
There are some issues with bookmarking and the like, but I think that is more the fault of the current crop of browsers than the frames because they don't let you chose which frame to bookmark.
I personally like frames. It's people's fault if they have 5 year old browsers not the webmaster's.
Besides, it's much easier to have a static navigation bar than to have to reload every single time. Especially if it has graphics or such.
this is kind of interesting and true
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
Oh man, i hate that guy. He said that flash was like 99.9% bad or something.
He basically says the same thing in all his columns, don't use 'x' feature unless you are an expert designer. His site sucks also.
unfortunately, the browser usage stats are chronicly outdated ;)
true it is a couple of years old, but it is one way of looking at it. not that i believe all of it...
Yeah, thats a bit of an exageration, its only 98.9% ;)Quote:
He said that flash was like 99.9%
flash is more like 99% good! People just have to know when to use it right and not go overboard.
The problem is, too many people go overboard. They you have to wait 5 minutes to download an animation just navigate a website.
Whats wrong with just using DHTML and a few images?
I used to use Flash, but some users, specifially Mac users for some reason, complained that they couldn't get jack done, so I re-did it using pure CSS/HTML. If their browser doesn't like CSS, it just defaults to the HTML which is pretty nifty IMO
So in 5 years, MS have completely turned that around. Not bad going.Quote:
The November 1996 browser statistics from Interse show the following distribution of browser usage:
Netscape 2: 13% of users
Netscape 3: 47% of users
Internet Explorer 3: 28% of users
Other browsers or earlier versions: 13% of users