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

re: RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>

From: <rev-bob@gotc.com>
Date: 18 Jan 00 11:06:43 -0500
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200001181108194.SM01092@Unknown.>
> >> Now, I think we can all agree that we've seen a misuse of frames.
> >> However, I am currently involved with one major media company and a
> >> start-up, and I have seen a genuine use for being able to affect one section
> >> of a page but not the others, and the best way to do that now is frames.
> 
> >Again, true enough - at the moment.
> 
> Some sites have complicated parts, largely static (e.g. the navigation
> bars). It drives me nuts when they slowly rebuild the whole page every time
> because they don't use frames, and if they waste too much of my time I
> leave. Is there another way or ways of keeping part of the page unrefreshed
> that does not use frames? If not, what's wrong with frames? We are saving
> our readers' time.

Once XLink is up and running, you'll have that and more.  One thing I'm trying to figure 
out is whether script support of some sort (most likely ECMAscript) is mandated for 
XML UAs - if so, as I seem to recall is the case, the structure may morph somewhat, 
but you'll be able to use combinations of CSS-P and XLink to effectively replicate a 
frameset.  The rough part, from what I can tell, is going to be having one "frame's" links 
open in a different "frame"...and even that may not be too hard.

In other words, if I read the XHTML intentions properly, the idea is to replace a 
specific type of framing (FRAMESET) with a more powerful and more generally useful 
sort.  I like that.



 Rev. Robert L. Hood  | http://rev-bob.gotc.com/
  Get Off The Cross!  | http://www.gotc.com/
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 11:06:47 GMT

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