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

RE: Frames

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:02:43 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB5824782@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org
> From:	Lohengrin [SMTP:lohengrin@hkguy.com]
> 
> doesn't include any frame element. Does it mean that frames are not
> recommended or being phased out? If so, what problems do frames cause? On
	[DJW:]  
	It means that they have never been in any reccommended version.
	The transitional version is transitional, not reccommended, and
	is deprecated in its entirety.

	Frames result in unbookmarkable pages, framing in other sites
	(often considered a copyright violation), deep links that
	don't work well (sometimes they work worse because of
	Javascript to force the frameset back in++  - even non-frames sites
	can end up doing this to remove an unwanted third party frameset),
	search engine hits that return a frame out of context (or trigger
	the above Javascript), and they encourage sites which insist people
	"update" their browser before they will even attempt to sell to
them.


> the other hand, frame elements are not classified as deprecated. It
> confuses
	[DJW:]  
	I tend to agree that this is confusing, but the argument
	seems that you cannot deprecate something unless it was
	once in the preferred version of the standard.

> me and the spec hasn't mentioned any further guideline in using frames.
> Should I avoid frames?
	[DJW:]  
	Yes.

	[DJW:]  ++ A lot of the Javascript used doesn't cope with all
	the circumstances, e.g. some will assume it is in the
	correct frameset when it is in any frameset. 
Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2000 08:10:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT