We're giving you advice that will make the UT better. You're obviously fighting IFrames and other issues. There are solutions out there that are 100% open source and standards compliant and work across multiple browsers, including handling browser differences. But you insist on using the older IFrame, that is not recommended for use anymore. YOU asked for help and advice.

>Well, I don't understand why everyone seems to want me to change the way I do things when it is already working. This jquery and AJAX stuff, well, I don't have a need for it because I already have a framework. It is just this little issue I have to move an IFrame inside a DIV, which is somewhat handled differently under HTML5. IAC, I will resolve it one way or another.
>
>But, in regards to the content that you load on top of another container. There is a DIV and it becomes visible when needed. This is what I have presently. But, in overall, it does pretty much the same thing. It loads a content (a frame, a window of whatever terminology developers are using now) on top of another. Then, once done, it disappears. This is what I do here but I do it with my own coding. Yes, there is an IFrame. And, if I can get rid of it, I will see about it. If I can obtain the same with only the DIV container, that will be nice. Otherwise, I will just found what is missing or need to be adjusted to have what I have now compliant with HTML5. As last night, I adjusted all those content to appear as is no matter if this is quirk mode of DOCTYPE html. It is also the same look across browsers. So, I thought it would have taken a little bit longer to resolve that specific point but it went better than expected.
>
>In overall, developers use what they want to use. But, I am not at a stage right now to change the way I do things when the framework is very and highly mature. I have about a dozen major applications using it across the country and I just cannot start changing this and that because one prefers one over the other. I am talking general here. I do not target any specific comment on this thread. It is the same as this site. I do not know how much Web site we can count which have been there for 20 years. No matter the evolution of technology, the changes of front ends, backends, technologies, cross browser support and related items, this site is still running and, IMHO, it runs well. I do get the same feedback from the application it supports. So, in overall, I will say the same thing as I say about naming convention, developers use what they want to use and feel comfortable with. There is no way to predict the future. Microsoft is fighting right now to gain success for the next 20 years with the start of Windows 8. Who knows where it's gonna lead. VFP was suppose to be away since a few very long time. It last about a good 10 additional years than expected. Many said .NET would not do. Well, it does and still kicking and alive. Same thing with VB.NET vs C#. Everyone has their own preferences. The most important is to deliver accordingly to what we are contracted or paid for with renowned technologies, so to obtain the best chances of having our code to live as long as possible, so is the case with the backend. It moves too fast right now. Everyone of us, or almost of us, are working usually more hours than expected on a weekly basis to keep in touch with this constant R & D, which costs a lot BTW, and make a living out of our job. So, there are many choices to choose from and many ways to achieve the same goal.
>
>Thanks for the feedback and the reference