Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)
MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 05:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199709101221.FAA07685@server.livingston.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 05:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
Subject: RE: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)
Once upon a time Neil Murray shaped the electrons to say...
><IFRAME> as a concept makes a lot more sense than <FRAME> and <FRAMESET>
>and is by far a more powerful element. It also fits well into the
>hierarchical order of the object model. <FRAME> and <FRAMESET> really
>shouldn't be required if <IFRAME> is in the specification.
I think IFRAME should be absorbed into OBJECT. They are really VERY
similar, and you could add the appropriate attributes to the OBJECT element
simply enough. IMHO it *is* just another way to include an external data
object.
True, with IFRAME you could use tables or CSS positioning to create a
document with several frames and no FRAMESET/FRAME.
-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com <http://www.livingston.com/>
Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588