Message-Id: <email@example.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:46:17 -0400 To: "David Perrell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com> From: Greg Marr <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD In-Reply-To: <199704291930.MAA29410@denmark.it.earthlink.net> At 12:23 PM 4/29/97 -0700, David Perrell wrote: >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. It is supposed to be used on pages WITHOUT frameset tags. It prevents frame-enabled browsers from displaying what is inside. The main use for this is to provide information to non-frame browsers that would be duplicated in another frame on a frame-enabled browser, such as navigation links or a banner. -- Greg Marr email@example.com "We thought you were dead." "I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"