Re: Frames in Web Design

On Aug 26, 3:03 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:07 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Whatever, whatever. In an application, everything but the opening page
is context-specific. There is no reason why you would ever need an
address that would allow someone to go directly to the page where, for
example, one's purchase information is displayed for final confirmation,
since such a page would be meaningless outside of the context of a
transaction in progress. Frames, in this case, aren't being used for
navigation.
And yet, on the other hand, there is no reason to use FRAMEs except in
the particular case where the application logic is on a different server
from the web server. IFRAMEs are a different story. But I don't think
they were ever subject to the same criticism as FRAMEs in the first
place. I think lumping them together is a diversion.

I think you re-read your original post and realized that you were
wrong and this is your attempt to regain face.

I think you're making up crap just for the sake of being contentious. As
I already noted, what I said wasn't wrong, and you *were* wrong to say
that it was. WorldCom--good grief, next thing we know, you'll be
referring us to practices on the Sperry Rand website.

How was I wrong in saying worldcom? Read my post, I said it was "My"
experience, My experience included WorldCom for frame based web
applications. MY experience knows that Verizon continued the same
applications.

What part of "My experiences" do you think YOU know better than me?




.

Quantcast