Re: Valid Editors; Frames DTD

James Aylett (sja20@hermes.cam.ac.uk)
Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:30:20 +0100 (BST)


Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:30:20 +0100 (BST)
From: James Aylett <sja20@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
To: "Solko, Dave (SOLKODE)" <SOLKODE@exchange.uc.edu>
Cc: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>,
Subject: RE: Valid Editors; Frames DTD
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=University_of_Ci%l=EXCHANGE-960627023310Z-500@EXCHANGE.UC.EDU>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960627132805.6373A-100000@crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk>

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Solko, Dave (SOLKODE) wrote:

> According to NS's own page on frames:
> <HTML> <HEAD> </HEAD> <FRAMESET> </FRAMESET> </HTML> So, I wouldn't
> recommend putting the <frameset> in the head. 
> 
> Also:
> "within the FRAMESET you can only have other nested       FRAMESET tags,
> FRAME tags, or the NOFRAMES tag."
> and
> "A Frame-capable Internet client ignores all tags and data       between
> start and end NOFRAMES tags."
>  
> I inferred that they intended the FRAMESET to replace the BODY. And
> since BODY-contained elements can appear within the NOFRAMES element --
> for non-frame browsers, this too implies that the FRAMESET should exist
> outside the HEAD.

Yes - but for older browsers that might understand BODY tags with
extensions, eg:

<BODY BGCOLOUR="#555555"> ... </BODY>

you would lose this because they wouldn't pick this up from the <NOFRAMES>
tag. It makes more compatible code (although less sense, I agree) to have
the <BODY> tags available in the document for non frame-capable browsers.

James

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  James Aylett - Crystal Services (crystal.clare.cam.ac.uk): BBS, Ftp and Web
     Clare College, Cambridge, CB2 1TL -- sja20@cam.ac.uk -- (0976) 212023