Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD

Jon Knight (jon@net.lut.ac.uk)
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:51:41 +0100 (BST)


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:51:41 +0100 (BST)
From: Jon Knight <jon@net.lut.ac.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org
cc: devinfo@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.95.970429161832.25124L-100000@willow.w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970430004149.10767K-100000@weeble.lut.ac.uk>

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Dave Raggett wrote:
> Netscape originally
> proposed that a NOFRAMES element could follow the outer FRAMESET
> element in place of the BODY element. We are loosening this
> definition to allow NOFRAMES within BODY.  This gives you
> greater flexibility in where you can place content for browsers
> that don't support frames.

With all this talk of frames in the Cougar DTD, I wonder if it would be
out of place to make a public plea to the authors of frames capable
browsers to add in the feature of letting people disable frames if they
don't like them?  Something like Netscape's disable Java and JavaScript
controls in Navigator 3.01.  Pretty please?  I've switched from X Mosaic
to Netscape for my GUI browser needs and I find having frames more of a
pain than not having them - they clutter up my browser's window and I
still end up looking at the frames document source half the time for the
"real page" to jump to.  I know I'm not alone in hating frames, so this
could be a big winner for the vendors, and might just encourage more
information providers to use NOFRAMES to provide decent information for
the frameless browsers.

Tatty bye,

Jim'll

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND.  LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl.  More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *