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

re: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:52 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001172347290.2094-100000@mail.q2.net>

On 17 Jan 2000 rev-bob@gotc.com wrote:

> > Perhaps there can be some style attribute that will allow the client
> > to differentiate between static and dynamic elements of a page.
> > Coming from a programming perspective, I can see how that is going
> > to be extremely difficult.
> IIRC, it's not a style solution.  Look at XLink; it should provide for
> this.  Combine a DIV that has a unique ID with one of XLink's new
> inclusion methods, and you really aren't far away from frames.  [...]
> I do believe XLink lets you bring the contents of a link into the
> current page as a replacement for the contents of an ID'd element....

Yes, that rates to be a better approach.  The key factor, though, is that
a "framed" context is inherently a compound document with independent
"moving pieces".  So, it's a confusion of the part with the whole to
shoehorn frames into 'text/html': the better idea surely is to recognize
the fact of compounding and start with another Media/MIME type - something
that explicitly captures/formalizes the aggregation, and further, ensures
that such compound documents are delivered only if client agents *ask* for

That's not to say that sufficiently ingenious use of XLink might not
provide a decent solution: links are one way to scope the extent of a
compound document type, and XLink has plenty of ideas from HyTime.  In
fact, the subject was discussed at least once a long time back:


Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 23:57:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC