Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD

Masayasu Ishikawa (
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 01:18:17 +0900

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 01:18:17 +0900
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 29 Apr 1997 17:29:25 +0200.
From: (Masayasu Ishikawa)

Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

>This is not strange, this is in agreement with the latest Working Draft
>on Frames [1]. The answer to your request is at the end of the DTD:
><!ENTITY % html.content "HEAD, FRAMESET?, BODY">
>Which means authors can provide a whole BODY for user agents that don't
>support frames. In addition, NOFRAMES can be used inside BODY for
>content to be only rendered by user agents that do not support (or
>simply do not use) frames, giving even more control.

So, Cougar specification of Frame is not compatible to those of
Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer ... frame documents
that use NOFRAMES *inside* FRAMESET (this is current practice) are
invalid for Cougar?

BODY contents *outside* NOFRAMES is also rendered in frame-capable
user agent? Where? If not, I can't understand the role of NOFRAMES ...

Masayasu Ishikawa