One huge reason not to use frames: People like to copy the url and email it, link to it, bookmark it, etc. If you have a frameset, their bookmark doesn't actually lead to the content they wanted - the bookmark just leads to the frameset. Also, it can confuse navigation and limit the main area for your content. To answer your other question, to create tables that size to the width of the screen, in the table tag, add this attribute: WIDTH="100%". -- droxford
Don't use frames. They are annoying and they create problems for some browsers and operating systems. As for tables, they are the preferred layout method, HOWEVER, the standards are rapidly changing. It is true that standard table tags will eventually be set aside in favor of defining them in a cascading style sheet (CSS) and using a DIV tag in your code. That hasn't happened yet, but it is something to consider. For more info on that, be sure to visit http://www.w3.org/ - the group that manages HTML standards for the web. You could also simply go to laying out pages in DHTML layers. Some developers have adopted this because you can define the exact spot in the browser window you want them to display. For example, if you want a layer aligned 300 pixels from the top and 200 pixels from the left, you can do that. Not as easy with tables. As for how you get your site to appear wider in larger browsers but smaller in others, that is a technique called "liquid" design. It has become more and more common. Our web company uses liquid fairly often. The way you do it is by setting certain table widths to 100% and making sure that wherever the table is going to stretch, the background is either tiled so it expands and looks the same or simply big enough to expand out to 1028 without looking messed up. Our site was done with liquid design so you can get an idea of how it stretches out. Good luck.
no frames. Bad for lots of reasons. Use tables. Then use some sort of style sheet to import your menus.
This all depends. I think IE6.0 put a lot of restrictions on what can be viewed, what not; with Netscape, you have lot more flexibility. Corporate sites generally go with table; individual sites can use either. Sometimes "T" layout is really the best choice
so doing the template bit in dreamweaver should be ok? i dont have any experience with the server side stuff, and i dont know if i have access to those files or not. or is it still a better option to try to do the header/footer thing like that tutorial mango posted?
If you use dreamweaver I found this awesome tutorial from them to create templates. It's pretty detailed, wish I had dreamweaver cause I'd follow it myself. http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com/tutorials/tutnewtemplate.cfm
Try to avoid anything server-side unless you know what you are doing. Using headers and footers are VERY convenient and Dreamweaver templates and assets do make them easier to use. That would be your best bet given your limited knowledge of dynamic development.
I dont know if I agree that frames are that bad. They aren't a replacement for tables or div w/css and I don't recommend them unless you need them, but frames and iframes do serve a purpose Microsoft uses frames intensively all over there msdn site. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/nhp/default.asp?contentid=28000546&frame=true Then again, just b/c MS is doing it, doesn't mean it's ok
