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


From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:53:49 -0800
Message-Id: <200001311654.LAA01469@tux.w3.org>
To: "Rev. Bob the Twice-Ordained" <rev-bob@gotc.com>, "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
>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:


Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 11:54:10 UTC

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