Backwards compatibility

James Green (jmkgre@essex.ac.uk)
Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:12:38 +0000 (GMT)


From: James Green <jmkgre@essex.ac.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <SIMEON.9712031738.B@s1686.essex.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:12:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Backwards compatibility

I have turned on this subject header to the HTML forum for a reason:

Do any of you share my point of view with regards the new 'official' 
framing tags. Whilst they do give the author the option of specifying 
no border, they do not specify that the space left for the border 
(where the slider would normally go) should be discarded, e.g.

____________________
|  Frame for title  |
---------------------
| Frame for content |
---------------------

Rather than the Netscape and Microsoft (admittedly different) methods 
of specifying to space to be indcluded with a frame, e.g.

_____________________
|  Frame for title   |
| Frame for content  |
----------------------

Surely the W3C could implement both groups' extensions, as I suggested 
in a private e-mail to a member of the W3C, something along the lines 
of using one for specifying the spacing between frames, and the other 
for another purpose, such as specifying a colour value (bad example, 
but your own in instead). Tis would allow many web authors to continue 
along their lines of specifying each to be '0' value for 'borderless' 
frames.

Or am I wrong about the W3's intentions?


Regards,

James Green

Term e-mail: jmkgre@essex.ac.uk   |   Home e-mail: jg@cyberstorm.demon.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.cyberstorm.demon.co.uk