Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD

nemo/Joel N. Weber II (devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:42:21 -0400


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:42:21 -0400
Message-Id: <199704302142.RAA17790@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
From: "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: davidp@earthlink.net
CC: galactus@htmlhelp.com, www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <199704301706.KAA04887@iceland.it.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Strange definition of Frame in Cougar DTD

   From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
   Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:56:18 -0700

   Strictly speaking, you can't. All late-model UAs are identified in an
   HTTP header variable. So content can be delivered according to features
   supported by the UA. You point out the problem with this method:
   supported features can be disabled.

   Would it not be better to have an HTTP variable "HTTP_FEATURES" or
   somesuch that would be a list of identifiers indicating which features
   were currently active? There would be no need to make assumptions -- if
   "frames" were not in the list, an intelligent server would know not to
   deliver a framed set of documents. With frames as a UA option,
   everybody would be happy except for those who pay the bill to support
   optional features. But even there, the bill-payer has the option to
   avoid support for these features altogether.

Yes, some list of features, instead of just a browser version, would have
been wiser.

The probability that any major browser will start to broadcast such
a list seems rather small.

But I'd love to see a specific proposal.

However, intelligently designed content wouldn't require such a feature...