Talk:Frame (World Wide Web)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to integrate content from several articles 

message: 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)
thread_title: How to

message: 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)
thread_title: history

message: The linked sites are MASSIVELY out of date, and are hardly relevent.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)
thread_title: need update

message: 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)
thread_title:  History? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Server Side Includes]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why PHP? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Title Change

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality in Critique section