Re: Frames spec & the NOFRAMES tag

nir dagan (dagan@upf.es)
Thu, 5 Mar 98 16:54:32 MET


From: nir dagan <dagan@upf.es>
Message-Id: <199803051554.QAA21233@sahara.upf.es>
To: riche@crl.com
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 98 16:54:32 MET
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <34FDE99A.595FE5D1@crl.com>; from "Alex Stewart" at Mar 04, 98 6:54 pm
Subject: Re: Frames spec & the NOFRAMES tag

Alex:
... 
> For that matter, a <LINK REL="noframes" ...> link type could specify a
> document to fetch instead of the current document if the user's browser
> is configured not to display frames.  With these two LINK types defined
> and used in on a web site, a user could switch back and forth between a
> frames version and a non-frames version using only their browser
> settings (instead of depending on (often clumsy) buttons and links on
> the web site to do it), the whole time keeping their place seamlessly
> within the context of the web site.

Nir Dagan:

Currently one can refer to the noframes alternative from the frameset and
vice versa using LINK:

<LINK rel="alternate" media="tty,speech,print" href="noframe.html">

This is incomplete since browsers of the media type "screen" may be 
configured to display or not display frames. A possible solution would be 
to define media types depending on configuration, e.g.:

<LINK rel="alternate" media="noframes" href="noframe.html">

It also saves the author to figure out which media render which feature.
(A problem that may increase with time with the increasing number of 
media types.)

Alex: 
> I must say, I am relieved to see that HTML 4.0 seems to have gotten rid
> of the horribly silly (and annoying) restriction against using anchor
> references in FRAME URLs.
> 
> -alex

Nir Dagan:

I didn't quite get what you mean. what was this restriction?


Best regards,
Nir Dagan.

dagan@upf.es
http://www.econ.upf.es/%7Edagan/