Sent by Stefan Huszics on 4 December 2002 23:11
Mike Migurski wrote:
>Re: iFrames, i say go for it. They're in the spec, so you can be
>reasonably assured that support will only increase in time.
>
Well, technically they are in "the spec", but they are also on the way
out of "the spec" considering it's deprecated in HTML 4.01.
And while normal frames seems to be returning with x-frames
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xframes-20020806/
the same is not true for <iframe>
There is a good alternative to <iframe> in the specs for most cases that
is valid strict 4.01, <object type="text/html"...>, but sadly browser
support for it is almost non exsistant.
Thus all things considered, <iframe> is probably the most crossbrowser
method to use clientside inclusions that exsists currently (all the big
ones handle it, even NS 4 if you nest a <layer> inside the <iframe>).
Thus it has it's uses, but if possible I would avoid it.
--
/Stefan
Software never has bugs. It just develops random features. =)
_______________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/css-discuss
Sponsored by www.westciv.com - CSS resources | software | learning
