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

RE: Status of Iframe in XHTML 1.1

From: <JOrendorff@ixl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:58:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CD8E2CDBC6D0D111ACB900805FBBD97E02630111@mem-131.ixl.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Murray,

you wrote:
> JOrendorff@ixl.com wrote:
> > > So, what is the fate of inline frame?
> >
> > Dropped from XHTML 1.1, unless a later draft resurrects it.
>
> Please read the XHTML 1.1 specification more carefully.
> In the Abstract, Introduction, particularly Section 3. "The
> XHTML 1.1 Document Type" and finally in the table in Appendix
> A. "Changes from XHTML 1.0" describe XHTML 1.1 as explicitly
> *not* providing features found in the HTML Transitional or
> Frameset DTDs [1].

Respectfully, Murray, I think you overestimate the clarity and
explicitness of W3C specs.  ;^)  None of the places you cited
actually come out and say that the features of the Frameset
DTD are deprecated.  Section 3 comes the closest:  "It (XHTML 1.1)
is not, however, as varied in functionality as the XHTML 1.0
Transitional or Frameset document types."  (The other places
do not mention "transitional" or "frameset" at all; the words
"legacy" and "deprecated" are used instead.)

Nowhere, in any W3C document I've been able to find, are the
frameset features formally deprecated.

One has to check the table in the appendix, or read all the
module descriptions, or fish through the DTDs, to be sure.


Another thing has been bothering me.  If all this has been stable
and well-known for so long, why isn't the change-- the most
significant difference between XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 and arguably
the biggest change ever to HTML-- mentioned in the "Future
Directions" section of XHTML 1.0?

Politics?

-- 
Jason Orendorff
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2000 18:59:17 GMT

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