Re: Frame document structure

Paul Prescod (papresco@incontext.com)
Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:29:09 -0400


Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960829062909.0096ce00@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:29:09 -0400
To: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>, www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@incontext.com>
Subject: Re: Frame document structure

At 09:36 PM 8/28/76 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>At 8:08p -0400 08/28/96, Paul Prescod wrote:
>>At 08:56 AM 8/28/76 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>>>This idea intrigues me. Put the <FRAMESET> and <FRAME> tags inside
>>><HEAD></HEAD>. The frame tags could point to <DIV>s within the current
>>>document, and/or to external documents.
>>>
>>>How does this structure sound?
>>
>>Much better. But not as good as stylesheets.
>
>I'll have to re-read that proposal, but it didn't look like it supported
>multi-document framesets. At least, it didn't use multiple documents in its
>examples...

"content: <URL> | normal 
     Fills the content of the frame with the given URL. This allows you to
put someone else's document inside your frame. A URL supplied with this
property overrides the normal content for the frame. The default is "normal"
consisting of all those elements that have their flow property set to this
frame. "

But I'm not 100% sure that this is the right place for it, though. Shouldn't
you use LINK to link to another document and STYLE to say how the two _look_
together?

I.e.
<STYLE>
link.toc {left: 0px; top: 100px; width: 500px; height: 400px}
</STYLE>

instead of 

<STYLE>
@frame toc {left: 0px; top: 100px; width: 500px; height: 400px}
</STYLE>

The latter, (the CSS way) seems to me like you are expressing a link between
two objects in a style sheet. That seems wrong. The _presentation_ for the
link should be described in the style sheet. In a sense, this is going to
lead us farther down the <LINK> deprived path we are already on. People
can't "see" the benefits of link, so they don't use it. They don't use it so
UA's don't implement support for it. ... CSS-layout could break the pattern
and stay more in tune with the original CSS.

 Paul Prescod