Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:23:56 -0700


Message-Id: <199704291930.MAA29410@denmark.it.earthlink.net>
From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: <www-html@w3.org>, "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@vega.aichi-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:23:56 -0700

Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
> BODY contents *outside* NOFRAMES is also rendered in frame-capable
> user agent?

No.

1) BODY contents outside FRAMESET _is_not_ rendered in frame-capable
browsers

2) BODY contents outside FRAMESET _is_ rendered in non-frames browsers

3) non-frames browsers haven't got a clue as to what NOFRAMES means

> ...I can't understand the role of NOFRAMES ...

Nor I. And as far as I know, NS has never expressed their motivation.

Is it NOFRAMES or NOFRAME? Netscape's own documentation
(<http://developer.netscape.com/library/documentation/htmlguid/frames.ht
m>) has it both ways.

I have seen some pages on Netscape's site with NOFRAMES inside the
FRAMESET and others with NOFRAMES outside the FRAMESET and one with a
NOFRAME tag. They all work. So does simply putting the BODY outside the
FRAMESET and not using the NOFRAMES tag at all.

Unless someone can give a good reason for its existence,
NOFRAMES/NOFRAME should be kept out of a formal spec. There's no reason
to remove it from existing pages, but there's no reason to add it to
new ones, either. Authors can simply use the BODY element following the
outer FRAMESET element and everything works fine with existing
browsers.

David Perrell