W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2000

Re: XHTML 1.1 : no frames

From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:10:25 +0200
To: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <sj6tqs493q1ehaj65ncbdjml62nlliap5t@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:57:59 -0700, "Tantek Celik"
<tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

[...]

>Ok HTML4 historians, why the heck wasn't the "NAME" attribute (as present on
>IFRAME) allowed on "OBJECT"?  This would have allowed using OBJECT as a
>strict generic replacement for IFRAME.  Could we fix this in an HTML4.02?

Maybe because in traditional SGML this is one possible and originally
defined job for ID and it's companion IDREF?

You would ID an OBJECT and then refer to it from an IDREF type element.
What ever type of processing that an agent may want to do with an IDREF
is actually up to the agent, but using an IDREF as a link to bring in
new OBJECTS with different ID's into a "frame-like" area on a VDU is one
fully valid SGML defined behavior.

Read the rest of it here...

  http://etext.virginia.edu/bin/tei-tocs?div=DIV2&id=SG16

And mind you that the HTML specs for OBJECT allows for "declared but not
yet instantiated OBJECTS" to be defined in the HEAD element of a doc
which could provide one possible key for how to implement it all.
Combine all of what's required in a doc that has fixed some of its
elements in a "frame-like" fashion and we may home free on this.

How's that for "history" for you? :-)

(and IFRAME is IMO a "hack", dirty or not, but still a "hack" :> )

-- 
Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
<URL:http://member.newsguy.com/%7Ejrexon/>
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2000 14:10:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:44 GMT