Re: Extending URL syntax for framesets?

Martin J. Duerst (mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch)
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:19:03 +0200 (MET DST)


Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:19:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: "E. Stephen Mack" <estephen@emf.net>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Extending URL syntax for framesets?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970728141920.00724e08@emf.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970729141503.245X-100000@enoshima>

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, E. Stephen Mack wrote:

> A key limitation with the use of frames (acknowledged by
> the HTML 4.0 draft) is that currently URLs can only point
> to an initial frameset and not a particular instance of
> a frameset (after links have been followed and the contents
> of different frames have changed).

> I'm not sure if any separators are available that are not
> already compromised or overloaded.  For now, I'm going
> to suggest the question mark even though it is fraught with
> other meaning -- so that I overload the GET URL format
> even further, but at least I know it's a valid URL syntax.
> (I'm open to suggestion.)

I think if anything, you better overload "#" than "?".
The part after "?" is sent to the server, the part after "#" is
not. In your case, it's the browser that has to disentangle
the additional information and load the various frames.

An additional advantage is that the syntaxt after "#" is not
very abused yet, so that it is easier to introduce new conventions.

Regards,	Martin.