Re: Frames (was Re: Body start tag.)

Mike Meyer (
Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:01:55 PST

Subject:  Re: Frames (was Re: Body start tag.)
In-Reply-To: <v03102823aff7d8654e3b@[]>
From: (Mike Meyer)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:01:55 PST
Message-ID: <>

>  > > That was my idea when I first saw frames. They are really a very
>  > > different "document type" than your typical HTML document. This is why
>  > Oh yes indeed! This is a beautiful suggestion, but it might need some
>  > thought:
> Yes, I also found this a very intriguing thought! But there must still be
> specified what <BODY> stuff can exist in a framedoc for use by non-frame
> browsers...

No you don't. All you need is for browsers that accept Frames to add
"text/frameset" to their Accept: headers (or whatever the equivalent
for HTTP/1.1 is), and servers (or CGI scripts) that are bright enough
to do that trivial level of content negotiation.

This was pointed out when NetScape first proposed Frames to the
HTML-WG, before the first public release of any browser that supported
frames. The technology to do this kind of thing existed in several
servers that were available at the time - just not in Netscapes.  So
we got stuck with the pile of elephant droppings that the W3C is
currently trying to clean up.