Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

Walter Ian Kaye (
Fri, 10 Sep 1976 17:24:05 -0700

Message-Id: <v0300780288bd17fd9334@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1976 17:24:05 -0700
From: Walter Ian Kaye <>
Subject: Re: Frames and Documents (fwd)

At 4:37p +0100 09/10/96, Abigail wrote:
>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.

There is also the problem of script-generated frame content. In this case,
I think the only solution is simply to link to the "master" page, and
include instructions for where to click once there. This would also be
more desirable simply because the author of that page may change the
sub-pages (case in point: the TR page at Don't we all want to
minimize the chances of a 404?


    Walter Ian Kaye <>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter