RE: the question is NOFRAME content

Gregory, I don’t disagree with your position, I just don’t see how it is supported by WCAG 2.0.

> the point is that NOFRAMES MUST be required when frames are used

Which SC says this?

> the relationship between frames is widely implemented in a visual
> conceit, 

To whit, I think one of the current techniques mentions adding title="Top Navigation" to name="TopNav" because name cannot use spaces.  That really has to be corrected.

> but if i am using a web-capable non-visual cell phone

Is that really the best example you can come up with as to why robust NOFRAME content is important for accessibility?

> i want content, and the only way to ensure alternate browsing in a
> non-visual environment is to mandate the provision of robust NOFRAMES
> content, and THAT my friends, is a screaming, flaming, indisputable P1

This is why I raised the question.  I do not find the above position to be well supported by WCAG 1.0 Single A nor WCAG 2.0 Triple A.  I am not sure what, if anything, should or could be done about it.