W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2015

Re: A successor to framesets

From: Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 00:42:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGxST9mxk1j-kcDvivq5sO4otSis2Kv9576Ke_wMpJcYL69xNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
The end of framesets is not so difficult, and the point is correctly
answered to by this framework.
And this point is something every social network user can understand quite
well:
"How can I refer to a web page when pages are shown inside a frame rather
than in the main window?"
It is a matter of defining  a URI that keeps track of loaded pages, but it
had to be done in such a way that changing URI does not fire a page load
(otherwise everything would be pointless)
The answer is current JS history object method .pushState. that allows
inserting an entry in the browsing context's history (corresponding to the
currently viewed document) without triggering a navigation.
Of course I appreciate all the native-HTML fallback concept.
Is there a proposal behind this message or is it just to let authors know?
(the latter purpose is appreciated, though).

2015-04-02 23:54 GMT+02:00 Sean Hogan <shogun70@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Andrea Rendine
> <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sean,
> > but HyperFrameset relies on JS. So what's the difference between that and
> > Angular?
> > I mean, the difference is that there's a native page with main content
> and
> > JS only enhances it by means of adding interactive elements around main
> > content.
>
> That is the point. Web-sites that are fully functional *by default* in
> any browser - old, new but unsupported, noscript.
> The end-user could even have the option to disable all the enhancements.
>
>
> And by "interactive elements" I mean tags (in this case custom
> > tags, so it isn't even native HTML) whose content is updated on an XHR
> > basis.
> > For what I see it is not a matter of implementing it natively. It's just
> a
> > new JS framework. It is somehow declarative, as the page is already built
> > and static elements are replaced by script. But... that's it, right?
>
> The starting point for the design really was HTML framesets, fxing
> things as necessary.
> So the layout / frameset page is more-or-less a stand-alone HTML page
> (potentially without any scripting).
> But unlike original framesets you don't navigate to the frameset page -
> it's just like normal navigation of a simple site but with the frameset
> applied.
> This isn't a new suggestion, see
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1996Dec/0143.html
>
> There's a few things I haven't worked out how to do declaratively,
> mainly hyperlink targets and state management.
>
> But it's very promising. The more I've worked on it the more I'm
> surprised that there's been no apparent effort to make framesets
> evolve for the web.
>
> regards,
> Sean
>
>
>
>
> > Yours respectfully,
> > Andrea
> >
> > 2015-04-02 22:54 GMT+02:00 Sean Hogan <shogun70@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi Eihab,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what you mean by "sub-titles
> >> on", but the video is really the best way to demonstrate the failure
> >> modes of JS framework based sites.
> >>
> >> If I provide a list of the demos - with start times and a detailed
> >> description of what they demonstrate - would that be constructive?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Sean
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Eihab Ibrahim <eihabibrahim@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Sean,
> >> >
> >> > Have you tried watching the video with Subtitles turned on?
> >> >
> >> > I apologize for the confusion on my part, but I assure you it was not
> an
> >> > impulsive response to a subject line. I sincerely thought that the
> >> > YouTube
> >> > submission was a prank.
> >> >
> >> > Please resubmit your proposal in a more accessible format and I'll be
> >> > more
> >> > than happy to review it and give feedback if I can.
> >> >
> >> > Respectfully,
> >> >
> >> > Eihab
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 4/1/2015 10:44 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Eihab,
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you saying that if I had posted this on, say, the 2nd April then
> >> >> you would have given it proper consideration instead of just
> >> >> responding to the Subject: line?
> >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >> Sean
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Eihab Ibrahim <
> eihabibrahim@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Sean,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's a bit too early in the US for April fools' jokes, and I do not
> >> >>> think
> >> >>> this is an appropriate platform for it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Respectfully,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Eihab
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Sean Hogan <shogun70@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> HTML framesets were the original single-page-application.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Despite the flaws (mostly not being content-first), at least servers
> >> >>> were emitting reasonably simple HTML including real hyperlinks and
> >> >>> forms.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What would framesets be like if we designed them today?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In the linked video I make the case for a successor to framesets.
> >> >>> It is 25 minutes but that is unavoidable.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>     https://youtu.be/qVdAc8_ppao
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The first half illustrates *why* this is important / better than
> >> >>> alternatives,
> >> >>> with actual demonstrations (which you should try for yourself to
> >> >>> ensure I'm not cheating).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The second half provides some insight into how I've approached this,
> >> >>> again with demonstrations.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'll continue later with details of the differences / enhancements
> >> >>> required to make the frameset concept live up to today's
> expectations.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> regards,
> >> >>> Sean
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> .
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 22:43:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:43 UTC