4 ms·

I hope we build Single-page apps with iFrames one day like how the web originally used <frame>. Everyone only talks about iFrames as if their only purpose is cr

I hope we build Single-page apps with iFrames one day like how the web originally used <frame>. Everyone only talks about iFrames as if their only purpose is cross-origin content and <frame> is forgotten.

packetlost 2y ago
Isn't there a bunch of complexity and security issues that come with using <iframe>? I'm not as familiar with <frame>.
- koolala 2y ago
  No, thats the misconception. All the security is around cross-origin usage and optional if using same-origin html like a SPA. Each iframe gets its own window element but that can simplify component design a ton if embraced. A <frame> was a system for loading same-origin html files from an Index. It was the original Single-page multi-page system and at the time seemed good enough for 90% of html 1.0 sites. <iframe> was supposed to replace it but then everyone used it for Ads and closed-source widgets.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I remember the days back when <frame> was still common, and I wouldn't call it good enough because of the way it interacted with URL and history. It was basically impossible to bookmark a specific page on a website that used frames.
    - koolala 2y ago
      It's a shame that was never solved because there is no reason it should be "impossible". Nowadays we have more control of URL and history. There must be a way.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        Well, the way frames are specified, each has an URL in its own right, so the way to do it would be to come up with some algorithm that combines them all in a single URL without losing any data. The resulting URLs would inevitably be messy, though. These days we basically hack around all this in JS by manually controlling history. Which is brittle as hell, and why so many web apps break "Back" etc. Managing state is always a hard problem. Versionable extensible persistence is harder still. Now add the requirement that this state has to be captured in a concise but human-readable way, and it's really hard to do in a way that doesn't introduce numerous footguns. I'm not saying that there isn't some good solution, but I don't know what it is, and I don't think anyone has figured this out yet.
        koolala 2y ago
        I got an idea to solve it by using url parameters like: site.com/?frame1=photos.html&frame2=books but then I need a way to continue this pattern for frames inside of frames and these params can only work for flat data. I need a URL tree structure. Edit: This syntax seems to work! [] and ; for nested params. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat?frame1=photos[a=1;b=2]&frame2=books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat?frame1=photos[a=1;b=2]&fra...
    - aitchnyu 2y ago
      One computer magazine urged us to search for "this browser doesnt support frames" to show the nonexistent indexing of framed pages.
nsonha 2y ago
the modern version of it is called the island architecture, look it up. It may or may not use iframes.
- int_19h 2y ago
  I think OP's point is that our current approaches are hacks around HTML - what the browser sees isn't individual components, but their combined output. It would sure be nice if this was something directly supported by browsers without the need for server-side frameworks.
  - nsonha 2y ago
    People should stop treating the dom and browser abstraction as golden standard. It's just an abstration that happens to be standardized. Sometimes it makes sense to follow the standard, sometimes "the standard" is just too shitty to follow.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      That's my point - if the standard is so shitty in this area that everybody reinvents this particular wheel in a hacky way, the standard should be improved.
      - nsonha 2y ago
        That's cool but people need to ship products while their ideas for improvement are endlessly debated, bikeshedded and possibly rejected eventually. At the end the standard is never what they exactly wanted. So it's kinda a futile effort, and for what? Most don't write code for 3rd party consumption, where standards shine.

packetlost 2y ago

Isn't there a bunch of complexity and security issues that come with using <iframe>? I'm not as familiar with <frame>.

koolala 2y ago
No, thats the misconception. All the security is around cross-origin usage and optional if using same-origin html like a SPA. Each iframe gets its own window element but that can simplify component design a ton if embraced. A <frame> was a system for loading same-origin html files from an Index. It was the original Single-page multi-page system and at the time seemed good enough for 90% of html 1.0 sites. <iframe> was supposed to replace it but then everyone used it for Ads and closed-source widgets.
- int_19h 2y ago
  I remember the days back when <frame> was still common, and I wouldn't call it good enough because of the way it interacted with URL and history. It was basically impossible to bookmark a specific page on a website that used frames.
  - koolala 2y ago
    It's a shame that was never solved because there is no reason it should be "impossible". Nowadays we have more control of URL and history. There must be a way.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Well, the way frames are specified, each has an URL in its own right, so the way to do it would be to come up with some algorithm that combines them all in a single URL without losing any data. The resulting URLs would inevitably be messy, though. These days we basically hack around all this in JS by manually controlling history. Which is brittle as hell, and why so many web apps break "Back" etc. Managing state is always a hard problem. Versionable extensible persistence is harder still. Now add the requirement that this state has to be captured in a concise but human-readable way, and it's really hard to do in a way that doesn't introduce numerous footguns. I'm not saying that there isn't some good solution, but I don't know what it is, and I don't think anyone has figured this out yet.
      - koolala 2y ago
        I got an idea to solve it by using url parameters like: site.com/?frame1=photos.html&frame2=books but then I need a way to continue this pattern for frames inside of frames and these params can only work for flat data. I need a URL tree structure. Edit: This syntax seems to work! [] and ; for nested params. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat?frame1=photos[a=1;b=2]&frame2=books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat?frame1=photos[a=1;b=2]&fra...
  - aitchnyu 2y ago
    One computer magazine urged us to search for "this browser doesnt support frames" to show the nonexistent indexing of framed pages.

nsonha 2y ago

the modern version of it is called the island architecture, look it up. It may or may not use iframes.

int_19h 2y ago
I think OP's point is that our current approaches are hacks around HTML - what the browser sees isn't individual components, but their combined output. It would sure be nice if this was something directly supported by browsers without the need for server-side frameworks.
- nsonha 2y ago
  People should stop treating the dom and browser abstraction as golden standard. It's just an abstration that happens to be standardized. Sometimes it makes sense to follow the standard, sometimes "the standard" is just too shitty to follow.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    That's my point - if the standard is so shitty in this area that everybody reinvents this particular wheel in a hacky way, the standard should be improved.
    - nsonha 2y ago
      That's cool but people need to ship products while their ideas for improvement are endlessly debated, bikeshedded and possibly rejected eventually. At the end the standard is never what they exactly wanted. So it's kinda a futile effort, and for what? Most don't write code for 3rd party consumption, where standards shine.