Re: SGML markup declarations for Frames

Ingo Macherius (
Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:55:57 +0200 (MDT)

From: Ingo Macherius <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: SGML markup declarations for Frames
To: (Joe English)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:55:57 +0200 (MDT)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Joe English" at Sep 3, 96 10:08:18 am

Joe English points out:

> Also, with:


> 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

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,
 information != knowledge != wisdom != truth != beauty != music == best (FZ)