- From: Ingo Macherius <ingo.macherius@mwe.hvr.scn.de>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:55:57 +0200 (MDT)
- To: joe@trystero.art.com (Joe English)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
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)
Received on Thursday, 5 September 1996 13:12:54 UTC