<BODY>, <FRAMESET> and <NOFRAMES> in MSIE 3.0 and HTMLPRO

Charles Peyton Taylor (CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil)
Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:43:03 -0800


Message-Id: <s2e7952b.012@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:43:03 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Subject:  <BODY>, <FRAMESET> and <NOFRAMES> in MSIE 3.0 and HTMLPRO 

Using the Corel Visual DTD thingie, I've been looking at 
frames, as I think frames might be useful on my web site.
I've noticed some inconsistancy.

This is the HTML Pro model of frames:

<HTML>
	<FRAMESET>
		<FRAME>
	</FRAMESET>
	<NOFRAMES>
		<BODY> (%body.content)
		</BODY>
	</NOFRAMES>

</HTML>

Notice that <NOFRAMES> contains <BODY> and is at an equal 
depth as <FRAMESET>


The IE 3.0 DTD seems to go this way:
<HTML>
	<FRAMESET>
		<FRAME>
		<NOFRAMES>(%body.content)
		</NOFRAMES>
	</FRAMESET>
</HTML>

Notice that <NOFRAMES> is within <FRAMESET>, and <BODY> 
is just gone.

In the cougar DTD, a comment says that "The frame tags 
will probably be added once we have an agreed definition 
for them."[1]  Is this happening soon?  The only thing I 
see on the W3C's technical report page is the "Frame-based 
layout via Style Sheets" report.

Furthermore, if one is trying to set an example for his 
organization by writing validating web pages, should one 
lean toward the MSIE model or the HTML Pro model?  In 
other words, what's the Right Thing (other than forget 
about frames altogether.)

On an nearly-unrelated note, the Love and Rockets song 
"<BODY> and <SOUL>" came on my CD player as I was writing this.

[1]
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Cougar/HTML.dtd


C  h a r l e s    P e y t o n   T a y l o r         ctaylor@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of 
the Naval PostGraduate School 

                       "Dreams are like water, colorless, and dangerous"

                   http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/%7ectaylor/