>From: rev-bob@gotc.com >Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2000, 8:32 AM > >> I personally, in my own personal opinion, believe that the standards body >> is making a mistake by trading functionality for standardization. > > What functionality has been traded away? Granted, in XHTML 1.1 you lose > frames - which you can simulate with CSS and XLink if you really need 'em. No you cannot. This is a misconception that needs to be cleared up so that it stops propagating. 1. XLink is NOT a recommendation yet. Therefore it is inappropriate to suggest it as an alternative mechanism in any other proposal which is supposed to become a recommendation. 2. CSS does not yet specify all the capabilities for presenting FRAMEs that HTML allowed. Yes, CSS-2 includes overflow:scroll and position:fixed, but it does not include anything to support the NORESIZE attribute for example. For that you have to wait for the User Interface Module of CSS-3 which will be a combination of the User Interface section in CSS-2 and the additions proposed by the CSS-3 UI working draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-userint#resizer TantekReceived on Monday, 31 January 2000 11:54:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:49:20 GMT