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

Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4

From: G. James Berigan <www-html@war-of-the-worlds.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:41:41 -0600
Message-Id: <v04220801b4a1263d816f@[216.229.13.10]>
To: www-html@w3.org
FYI: I don't appreciate getting two copies of messages (once via the list,
once via direct mail).  I subscribe, so a personal copy is unnecessary.  I
go to the effort myself to alter the destination so as not to send
duplicates, and I do so manually.  I would expect others to do the same
unto me.

Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote:
>"G. James Berigan" <www-html@war-of-the-worlds.org> wrote:
>>Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote:

>>> Frames were never *in* the HTML 4 strict set, so they can't be deprecated
>>> there.

>> Ann, _nothing_ deprecated is in the _strict_ set, including frames and
>> their support

> Items that were in HTML 3.2 and earlier, but are now deprecated in HTML 4.0
> are indeed not in HTML 4.0 strict, and show as deprecated in HTML 4.0
> Transitional.
>
> Frame issues don't qualify in the above scenario.

So what you meant to say was, "Frames were never *in* the HTML 3.2 set, so
they can't be deprecated in HTML 4.0."

Sorry, but HTML 4.0 serves a double purpose: to document common usage
_today_ (the Transitional and Frameset DTDs) as well as propose a new
standard (HTML 4.0 Strict).  HTML 3.2 is out of date in its documentation
of common _past_ usage.

Are you seeking to enforce the legitimacy of frames just because the W3C
didn't create a separate HTML 3.3 standard recognizing frames before
establishing HTML 4.0?

Markup can spring forth into a new specification in deprecated form.  It is
initial recognition and immediate deprecation upon that recognition.  That
is a fact now:  they are implicitly deprecated.  It just should be stated
explicitly.
-- 
         ,=<#)-=#  <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
    ,_--//--_,
 _-~_-(####)-_~-_  "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just
(#>_--'~--~`--_<#)  the photos.  Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face."
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 13:41:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:40 GMT