W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2001

Re: FRAMEBORDER attribute?

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@exch1.rhul.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:53:55 +0000
Message-ID: <3A795C63.7947ECDB@Rhbnc.Ac.Uk>
CC: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
I'm as opposed as Dave Woolley and many others to the /abuse/ of frames,
but I still believe that their use is not /always/ as bad as 
he would have use believe.  I can't lay my hands on my copy
of "Raggett on HTML 4" as I write, but from memory I am reasonably
confident that Dave Raggett had some pretty positive things to
say about them...

Philip TAYLOR,
Webmaster, RHBNC, University of London
--------
Dave J Woolley wrote:
> 
> > From: Steve Doig [SMTP:Steve.Doig@shihad.zzn.com]
> >
> > Why should you move away from frames? - I thought thay were valid useful
> > constructs.
> >
>         [DJW:]  Because CSS should be used instead.
> 
>         Because they are not in XHTML 1.1.
> 
>         Because they are in a part of HTML 4 reserved for
>         deprecated and stop gap features and have never been
>         in the preferred version of any W3C specfication.
> 
>         Because they make creation of a web++ difficult because
>         you can't deep link to a frame combination and can't even
>         reliably deep link to a single frame (often it will simply
>         script itself to the home page).
> 
>         Because you cannot see page titles or URIs on fully frame
>         capable browsers, encouraging badly titled frames.
> 
>         Because they encourage people to create sites that
>         don't degrade gracefully to older browsers, text only
>         browser, and, to some extent TV browsers.
> 
>         ++ in the sense intended in "the World Wide Web", not in the
>         sense used by Front Page.
>
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 07:54:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:45 GMT