Thank you dorward, this looks interesting. I'm going to try it.
Why do I want to use xhtml 1.1? Just because. I'm a geek. ;) I can do this in xhtml1.0 transitional. And as far as I've seen, Internet Explorer 6 has no trouble rendering xhtml 1.1. (My host, otoh, has the nasty habit of preprocessing all html and replaces the <body> with <BODY>, very bad.)
Why do I want to use an iframe? I have about 160 articles, that are going to be marked up in xml. (They're in html right now, published on my own site, living there very happily.) By using a frame, I can load any article into a "static" backdrop that holds the navigational menus. Using css I can attach styling to the articles. So I could use a normal frame, if my backdrop had allowed that. However, I'm working on a specific backdrop that makes the use of a normal frame quite hard, if not impossible. An iframe is much better suited for this particular job.
Instead of an iframe I could of course use javascript to load the article information into a div in the backdrop. But when someone had turned off javascript support in their browser, no information would be seen. Very bad for an information web site. By using an iframe I have a) far better chances for the information to be seen and b) no need to write browser-specific code for handling xml-import.
Main Topics
Browse All Topics





by: dorwardPosted on 2003-11-05 at 06:33:43ID: 9686923
Why are you using XHTML 1.1 in the first place? Or iframes for that matter?
WD-xhtml11 -19990910/ xhtml11_mo dules.html #a_module_ Iframe has the iframe module.
:80/tutori al/xhtml/m odule.asp should get you going with using it.
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/
http://www.juicystudio.com
Frankly, if you have a pressing need for XHTML, use 1.0. Browser support is such that 1.1 isn't generally wise (MSIE rejects it entirely as it can't conform to the spec and be sent with a text/html content type). If you have a pressing need for iframes, use 1.0 Transitional. Most people shouldn't have a pressing need for either.