Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD

Greg Marr (gregm@alum.wpi.edu)
Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:46:17 -0400


Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970429154617.0093f550@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:46:17 -0400
To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>, <www-html@w3.org>
From: Greg Marr <gregm@alum.wpi.edu>
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
gregm@alum.wpi.edu
"We thought you were dead." 
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"