Talk:Frame (World Wide Web)

I just proposed reorganizing content from this and other articles into a more general page, perhaps titled "Web Page Layout". Please check out Talk:Tableless_web_design#Proposal:_Integrate_other_page_content, and comment there. Davidlark (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I hate to say this but this page needs a total rewrite, or better yet, a title change. Framing is where you put someone elses content into your site: http://www.showroom411.com/entry/purchase-deck-and-railing-material-direct/ipe-depot.html implying it's your content, boost SE ranking, or to advertise over someone elses content (like with the diggbar, stumbelupon bar etc.). It's illegal (copyright infringement), immoral and users don't like it either. What the content of this article is actually about is called "Frames" or more specificlly "HTML Frames". (texxs - I forgot my password, thus can't log in until I get home).

how to use prototype.js file in frame supporting IE

please: wikipedia is not a forum. discuss this in a developer forum somewhere in the internet! mabdul 21:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I vaguely remember a controversy in the mid-1990s about the increasing use of frames in websites. Apparently many browsers couldn't support them and users disliked them. Bastie 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The linked sites are MASSIVELY out of date, and are hardly relevent. Can we get some more up to date and relevant data? 81.137.159.61 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

""Some websites request not to be used in this way on other websites; some discourage it by including a framekiller script in its pages. The framing website runs a risk of being blamed for external content that, for example, is or becomes inaccurate or objectionable.""
These statements are quite irrelevant to the topic, namely, what frames are?
216.86.180.101 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

But they are relevant to 'framing' as a controversial practice - the page title is 'Framing' not 'Frames'. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed! - texxs (not signed in)

I'm the anon (207.177.231.9) whose edit on frames was reverted, with the explanation that areas with seperate scrollbars and/or that did not require reloading and rerendering were possible using techniques such as AJAX. I've seen a great many examples of so-called frame replacements using CSS which have areas that do not scroll along with the window's scrollbar, but they are incapable of being scrolled at all, and must always be reloaded and rerendered alongside the rest of the window's contents. I have never seen a real replacement of frames (can be scrolled independantly, doesn't rerender or reload entire window when one area changes) in action and will not withdraw my edit unless a link to an example of such a thing is produced. 216.228.20.138 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

here's your example: maps.google.com

AJAX makes it possible to use JavaScript to rewrite sections of HTML without need full a full-page refresh, and CSS provides the ability to add or remove horizontal and vertical scrollbars to these rewritten section as needed. I am not going to go out of my way to actually create a web page with this behavior to satisfy you - a proper understanding of the various web standards involved should be sufficient. -- Scjessey 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a good example of a general technique, but it doesn't replace Frames sufficiently, as it requires client-side script to function. Does anybody have an example that doesn't require client-side script? (And that doesn't require a reload of the entire page, or more than the frame equivalent it replaces?) BTW, the page behind the reference "CSS Navigation Menu" does not provide such a satisfactory replacement. Metafax1 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Answer found (silly me): IFrames can be specified with a NAME attribute, and then TARGETed by an anchor. Therefore, frameset functionality can be replicated without any client-side script. There will be formatting and page placement work, which is not unusual and can be achieved with multiple iframes, if desired, and existing formatting techniques. However, iframes do not appear to provide for *horizontal* scrollbars, and provide little border control (a minor nuisance).Metafax1 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can someone add a history section or something like that to this article? It would be nice to know, for example, when framesets were first introduced and by whom/in which browser. --The Wild Falcon 12:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added a History section, but my research did not turn up much information on it. Someone with more experience in this area needs to expand it. Skreyola (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’ve been told that SSI is the proper solution as a replacement. Can somebody confirm this and add it to the replacements section? There’s also the :before and :after pseudoclasses in CSS, which one could (ab)use to insert stuff like a header and footer, I suppose. H. (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the introduction, PHP is named as an example for a scripting language. Why PHP and no other languages? --'''Xjs.''' (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I concur. How do you change the title of an article? Houghton 5:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

why do you want to chamnge the title? to what? on the headline there is a following links: page, discussion, edit, hitory, move <-- use move! mabdul 21:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I concur with both REWRITE and TITLE CHANGE. The title is Framing, which as others have indicated is a nefarious web page containment practice, and has nothing to do with Framesets/IFrames. We actually need to split this page into 2, one for each topic (and make sure the HTML topic list on the right links to Frames and not Framing). Metafax1 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the Critique section, the essay part (below the bullet-pointed criticisms) is strongly supporting the use of frames, rather than citing sources that advocate the use of frames. Can we get some comment please on a better way to include such support? Thanks. -- Bricaniwi (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Actually, to be quite honest, I think the entire page needs to be rethought. The whole article reads like an apologia on why frames should be kept in the standard. Granted, there is a template at the top that says it "reads like a personal essay," or words to that effect, but really, the entire POV of this article seems (to me, anyway) to be from the POV of someone who would prefer frames not be deprecated in the standard, rather than someone explaining the pros and cons of frames (and/or any other approach). In short, this article has a serious NPOV problem, and citation issues, as well (which are already mentioned in another template above the article). In the interest of disclosure, I don't like frames, I never have, but even so, I think this article could be much better written from a NPOV, and if anyone (or everyone :) agrees, I will at least try to begin a rewrite myself. Metalboy5150 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recently made a change to this page that was reverted (see the undoing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Framing_%28World_Wide_Web%29&diff=597001356&oldid=596996596)

I understand that sticking to wiki markup is desirable. However, the current markup renders really weirdly, at least to me. See here. I have even consulted wikipedia's help on this subject to see if there was a way to do it properly, and my edition conforms to what I saw in that page.

Again, I understand if my change is not optimal, but the way it is right now is clearly worse than what I changed it with. Can anyone comment on this? Possibly User:Andy Dingley, who reverted my edition.

Thank you

~ Jotomicron 00:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It would take a day to explain all of the subtleties here!

Firstly, thanks for pointing out the formatting glitch. I've since made a second edit that I hope fixes it.

This is Mediawiki. We strongly favour wikitext markup, not HTML.

We also favour semantic markup, not simply presentational.

Using * as a prefix to a line in wikitext is used to generate list markup, not paragraph markup. In the resultant HTML, paragraph markup can't be interposed with list markup. Also note that blank lines within a wikitext list instead break it into separate lists (and a whole new <dl>...</dl>), not separate list entries! (One might even consider that a mis-feature in Mediawiki – a lot of pages would be better formatted if Mediawiki's default action was to merge adjacent lists).

My last change new generates the following markup for the embedded list with the lead-in title:

<li> Lorem ipsum ...
<br> ... lead in:
<ul>
<li> sub list #1 ...</li>
<li> sub list #2 ...</li>
</ul>
</li>

Yours would be similar, but

<li> Lorem ipsum ...
<p> ... lead in:</p>
<ul>
<li> sub list #1 ...</li>
<li> sub list #2 ...</li>
</ul>
</li>

Now embedding <p>...</p> within <li>...</li> is valid, but it's also an extra level of formatting and so (IMHE as a HTML/CSS geek) a bad idea because it would double up any margin or padding CSS from the <p>. There is also the strong disincentive of needing to use embedded HTML formatting.

Thanks for raising the error. It's an error and my edit hadn't fixed it. However I would suggest that we do fix it with the <br>, not the <p>...</p>. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply