Quote:
Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.@Mar 10 2006, 01:26 PM
1st you quoted my "well actually you can"?
|
My quoting was was a little screwed up in that post. Price I pay for not doing a very good job of previewing it.
Quote:
Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.
i told you reason before i wrote you "what if you need"
and i repeated it in previous post with disappointment of your "if you have an enormous amount of text data in a navigation frame it's probably time to rethink your navigation" answer
|
Not that I can see. I would honestly appreciate it if you'd clearly list these reasons all in one place so I can more easily address them one-by-one as I'm having a terrible time trying to find them among your posts (your English is much, much better than my Slovak, but I do sometimes have trouble parsing your posts).
Quote:
Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.
Quote:
|
Provide me with an example of a situation in which one persistent frame would contain a large amount of text (we're talking at least 10kb) -- I certainly can't think of one.
|
like whole site? including all the scripts and stuff you use too
becouse frames dont have to be nav bar only=/
|
The whole site? Using frames doesn't magically make the whole site faster. Scripts are cached, and I'm not sure what you mean by "stuff you use to."
Of course I've read those articles. Notice that the date on the article you're talking about is December of 1996 which long predates the newer, better methods of accomplishing meta-pages and scrolling short-cuts.
As for your links, it's the same-old, same-old. Personally, the first link doesn't really impress me as being all that well-done (the writing is rather poor and there are more things which stick out as fundamentally wrong). The second link makes only 3 points, all of which have been addressed by CSS.
The four "advantages" listed in the first article are:
- Easier to navigate
- Faster
- Easier to maintain
- Ads
I've addressed all four of them before.