Re: SGML markup declarations for Frames

Ingo Macherius (ingo.macherius@mwe.hvr.scn.de)
Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:55:57 +0200 (MDT)


From: Ingo Macherius <ingo.macherius@mwe.hvr.scn.de>
Message-Id: <199609041955.VAA24556@ESAMX6.mwe.hvr.scn.de>
Subject: Re: SGML markup declarations for Frames
To: joe@trystero.art.com (Joe English)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:55:57 +0200 (MDT)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <9609031708.AA29719@trystero.art.com> from "Joe English" at Sep 3, 96 10:08:18 am

Joe English points out:

> Also, with:

>     <!ELEMENT HTML O O  (HEAD, (BODY | FRAMESET)) >

> it is no longer legal to omit the <BODY> start-tag,
> since the BODY element isn't contextually required anymore.
> If Cougar is to maintain backwards-compatibility
> with existing documents, FRAMESET documents will
> have to use a different document type.
[...]
> Any thoughts?

In my understanding Framesets relate to HTML documents the same way
as SUBDOC entities relate to documents in SGML. So the idea of having
different DTDs for <FRAMESET> and <HTML> seem very sound to me.
IMHO there are two possible strategies to include <FRAMESET> to HTML
infrastructure.

1) Make a DTD for frames that fit the needs of document management. One
should consider the work already done on tag <RESOURCE> tag. This aims 
towards a meta document that manages HTML docs like SNMP manages complex
site configuration.
2) Integrate the <FRAME> functionality into standard <HEAD><BODY> scheme.
Probably moving <FRAMESET> to <HEAD> and allow multiply <BODY> entities
in a single file resource.

The first way seems more promising to me, the second more simple. 

Virtually yours,
Ingo
-- 
Campus:  Ingo.Macherius@tu-clausthal.de      http://www.tu-clausthal.de/~inim
Siemens: Ingo.Macherius@mwe.hvr.scn.de       http://www.scn.de/~inim
 information != knowledge != wisdom != truth != beauty != music == best (FZ)