Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

Scott E. Preece (
Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:21:05 -0500

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:21:05 -0500
Message-Id: <>
From: "Scott E. Preece" <>
In-reply-to: Abigail's message of Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:37:44 +0100
Subject: Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

From: Abigail <>

| > 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.

Over-engineering of solutions has not been a common problem in the
evolution of the Web...

Consider that we still haven't handled a couple of key shortcomings of
the whole URL model:

	the tying of a resource name to a specific host, (making it
	impossible (or kludgy) to migrate it elsewhere or to replicate

	providing access only to author-provided TARGETs within a
	resource makes it impossible for an author to cite arbitrary
	places, tossing away centuries of standard citation practice

It's hardly surprising that the first sketchy approach to presenting
configurations of resources as logical entities would be
under-engineered and would last forever...


scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail: