他们只是没有得到任何尊重。 在JavaScript的早期阶段，多帧和多窗口web 应用程序相当常见。现在，网页设计已经强烈反对使用框架（但不是内联框架，称为< i> iframes）< / i>，它是不太常见的是看到使用交互的网站 windows。 （Flanagan，5e;脚注，第289页） 为什么？
解决方案Ma ************ @ gmail 写道： 他们没有得到任何尊重。
你没有意义。
"在JavaScript的早期，多帧和多窗口网页 申请相当普遍。现在，网页设计已经强烈反对使用框架（但不是内联框架，称为< i> iframes）< / i>，它是不太常见的是看到使用交互的网站 windows。 （Flanagan，5e;脚注，第289页） 为什么？显然，Flanagan很少知道他在说什么，如果那样的话。不使用框架或iframe的 选择与 all中的脚本无关，因为从第一天开始它们被支持 `a''元素。这是大约十二年前出现的无障碍和CSS 的问题。 PointedEars - 现实主义：HTML 4.01严格 福音：XHTML 1.0严格 疯狂：XHTML 1.1作为应用程序/ xhtml + xml - Bjoern Hoehrmann
Thomas''PointedEars''Lahn< Po ********* @ web.dewrites： Ma************@gmail 写道： >"在JavaScript的早期，多帧和多窗口web应用程序相当普遍。现在，网页设计已经强烈反对框架的使用（但不是内联框架，称为< i> iframes）< / i>，并且看到使用的网站不太常见互动窗口。 （Flanagan，5e;脚注，第289页） 为什么？
显然，Flanagan很少知道他在说什么，如果那样的话。 选择不使用frame或iframes无关用 编写脚本，因为从支持的第一天开始，支持'a''元素的 `target'属性。这是大约十二年前出现的可访问性和CSS出现的问题。
你要在Flanagan的嘴里说话。他绝对是正确的，因为帧的使用量比过去少得多，而且他根本不会在报价中谈论脚本。但是你认为主要的原因是他们没有那么多使用的原因是可访问性问题 和CSS使得内联滚动元素成为可能。 - Joost Diepenmaat |博客： joost.zeekat.nl/ |工作： zeekat.nl/
Joost Diepenmaat< jo *** @ zeekat.nlwrites： 你要在Flanagan的嘴里说话。他绝对是正确的，因为帧的使用量比过去少得多，而且他根本不会在报价中谈论脚本。
我的意思是，他没有做任何与框架脚本相关的陈述， 他当时只是说javascript开始流行，框架 也是。 - Joost Diepenmaat |博客： joost.zeekat.nl/ |工作： zeekat.nl/
They just don''t get no respect. "In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</ i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289) Why?
解决方案 Ma************@gmail wrote: They just don''t get no respect.You are not making sense.
"In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow web applications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned strongly against the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</ i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interacting windows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289) Why?Evidently, Flanagan rarely knows what he is talking about, if that. The choice of not using frames or iframes has nothing to do with scripting at all, as since the first day they were supported the `target'' attribute of `a'' elements was supported. It is a matter of accessibility and of CSS emerging about twelve years ago instead. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Thomas ''PointedEars'' Lahn <Po*********@web.dewrites: Ma************@gmail wrote: >"In the early days of JavaScript, multiframe and multiwindow webapplications were fairly common. Now, web design has turned stronglyagainst the use of frames (but not inline frames, called <i>iframes)</i>, and it is less common to see web sites that use interactingwindows." (Flanagan, 5e; footnote, p. 289)Why?Evidently, Flanagan rarely knows what he is talking about, if that. The choice of not using frames or iframes has nothing to do with scripting at all, as since the first day they were supported the `target'' attribute of `a'' elements was supported. It is a matter of accessibility and of CSS emerging about twelve years ago instead.
You''re putting words in Flanagan''s mouth. He''s absolutely correct that frames are used a lot less than they used to be and he doesn''t talk about scripting at all in that quote. But you''re correct that the main reason they''re not used that much anymore are the accessibility issues and CSS making inline scrolling elements possible. -- Joost Diepenmaat | blog: joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: zeekat.nl/
Joost Diepenmaat <jo***@zeekat.nlwrites: You''re putting words in Flanagan''s mouth. He''s absolutely correct that frames are used a lot less than they used to be and he doesn''t talk about scripting at all in that quote.I mean, he''s not making any statement relating scripting to frames, he''s just saying that at the time javascript became popular, frames were too. -- Joost Diepenmaat | blog: joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: zeekat.nl/
更多推荐
框架为Rodney Dangerfield
发布评论