Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

Abigail (
Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:37:44 +0100

Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:37:44 +0100
From: Abigail <>
Subject: Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Abigail wrote:
> > Benjamin Franz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll say this one final time:
> > > >
> > > > YES, when you have the freedom to use any archiving system you want for
> > > > browser bookmarking, you can do this. But when you want to link to a
> > > > specific point in a framed document *using HTML* in another (framed or
> > > > non-framed, but not identically framed) document, you don't have this
> > > > freedom (at least with the current spec).
> > >
> > > Yes you can. You yourself just said how. Use a frameset of your own to
> > > point at the pieces. There is nothing magic about the original author's
> > > own frameset. A link to this frameset will then take you directly to the
> > > page combination wanted.
> >
> > You mean that if you want to point to a framed document, the way to
> > go is make a page with a copy of the frameset in which the frame is
> > in, with the right pages loaded, and link to that?
> > What if I want to point from a Usenet article, and cannot put a
> > WWW page somewhere?
> Hmmm...I think, at least theoretically, you would post two Usenet
> articles. One with the frameset, one with the link. Multipart MIME should
> be able to do it as well - once the problem of referencing different
> parts of the same message is solved...

Isn't that a lot of overkill? Then you would require anyone who wants
to post an URL needs to know HTML. In stead of putting
See also <URL: http://whatever> in your posting, you require people
post an HTML document to Usenet, which people reading it should first
save to a file, then load it to their browser using file://.
Far from being desireable. At least, in my opinion.

> > I always thought hyperlinks should be easy.
> Shrug. You want complicated things, you get complicated implementation. At
> some point when using frames you *have* to specify the state of the
> frame's content. Since the content state is not intrinsic to the frames
> themselves, you have to use an extrinsic method to link to it.

Could it be the awkwardness of addressing instances of frame states
is one of the reasons people say frames are kludgy? Personnally, I
very much would prefer that the whole concept of frames was thought
about first, (and redone), before accepting complicated kludges.