A forum for discussing XHTML issues for both XML and HTML developers is a Public Group with 745 members.
- A forum for discussing XHTML issues for both XML and HTML developers
- Public Group,
- 745 members
5229Re: An alternative to frames AND to targets?
- David DorwardJul 11, 2009
--- In XHTML-L@yahoogroups.com, "d" <uforobotgrendizerus@...> wrote:
- 0 Attachment
> I am starting the design of a web site and I'd like to do it in a good way, using XHTML 1.1.Given that serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html is somewhat dubious when it comes to the specs, I'd suggest HTML 4.01 Strict as the final document format (even if you generate it from XHTML 1.1)
> I know that frames are depreciated,They aren't - just considered harmful.
> but I wish to have some fix navigation panes on the top and leftWhich is a long and complicated way to emulate position: fixed and support IE6.
> side of my web site, and a content that changes in the middle of
> the page.
> I just found this interesting method:
I'd just use position: fixed myself, either with position: absolute as an alternative for IE6 or dropping support for that browser (depending on the target audience).
(Actually, I wouldn't try to lock the navigation in view at all - people are used to scrolling back up to get to it, and it saves the bother if the navigation is longer than the window)
> This article advices to replace frames by divs and some CSS,You don't. The ability to change the primary piece of content without changing the top level URL is the primary problem with frames.
> BUT it does not say how to replace the "traget" elements in the <a href> tags.
It breaks bookmarking, linking and orphans pages in search engines. It is the REASON why frames are looked on disfavourably.
Include the meta content (such as navigation) on each page, and link normally.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>