Re: Summary: FRAMES tag references

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:28:17 -0600


Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:28:17 -0600
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Message-Id: <199601121928.NAA08182@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: william@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: "William C. Cheng"'s message of Fri, 12 Jan 1996 11:26:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Summary: FRAMES tag references 

   From: "William C. Cheng" <william@cs.columbia.edu>
|
|   Are FRAMES becoming part of HTML3?  Visually, it looks very nice in
|   Netscape, but the syntax looks quite ugly.  The problem seems to be
|   that connected-frames is a UI and not a mark-up novelty.
---

If stylesheets already existed it would make sense to make FRAME a
BODY element, allowing multiple FRAMES and allowing them to occur
anywhere, and put the layout specification in the HEAD (possibly in a
stylesheet or possibly in a new LAYOUT element) .  Actually, I'm
not sure why they didn't just use TABLE as the layout mechanism, instead
of introducing FRAMESET, but it was probably easier to implement if it
was an either BODY or FRAMESET choice.

The specification of the existence of FRAMEs, their initial contents,
and their identities seems to me to be wholly a BODY concern - they
define the contents of a single, aggregate resource.

When frames get standardized, we can argue about the best way to
represent document aggregation (actually, there's already been a fair
amount of discussion); in the meantime, the Netscape implementation is
providing some real experience to feed into the discussion.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com