Suzanne — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:43:54 +0000

Heh, here's why DIVs are better:

1. all the content is on one page (in one temporary file) so it's accessible to any browser, user agent, or printer, in any fashion, through judicious use of CSS

2. isn't #1 enough?

m3rajk — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:32:45 +0000

i think the initial issue with iframes was that it was something M$ made so that a site would break in everything else.

personally there's one time i think frame SHOULD be used instead of divs: when you have a completely static navigation area

i've found that if you set your browser to always check the remote insteadof your cache, or if that header is sent and your browser doesn't override it, that's the ONLY time you on't have to dl thenavigation images all over again every single time

JeevesBond — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:16:33 +0000

It has been many-a-year since I have had an argument about frames, because of this I have completely forgotten why they are evil - this seems like a good time for Suzanne to elaborate on her point about Div's being better...

Suzanne — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:33:22 +0000

Netscape does support layer, and you've mistaken the controversy (which is years old, btw) with layer/div.

Div is the standard, layer and ilayer were ditched. ilayer was the iframe equivalent, and it WAS IE only at first, but was adopted as a standard.

Divs are the better choice in many ways, however.

brady.k — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:40:38 +0000

i was wrong, i apologize. i thought netscape supported "layer" and IE was "iframe"?

Renegade — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 04:36:12 +0000

Its used the same as frames, just "include" the file into the src="" area.

Suzanne — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:51:48 +0000

iframes are a standard, and supported by Netscape 6+, IE 4+, Opera 5+ (I think) and all newer browsers like Mozilla, Safari, et cetera.

brady.k — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:46:49 +0000

Why IFrames? Why not a div layer that is widely supported instead? IFrames tend to be IE only, I believe. But, people, correct me if I am wrong.