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

RE: FRAMEBORDER attribute?

From: David Higgins <d.higgins@eintegration.com.au>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:01:57 +1100
Message-ID: <CFF312DBBC1CD411800B00E018C296233A6DA8@LEONARDO>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
I am *not* a fan of frames and avoid them where possible but it is
ridiculous to trash them as is being done here! Let's get out of la-la land
for a moment and realise that we've moved waaaayyyyy beyond simply marking
up pages of text. Presentation and user experience (I dislike that term but
?) are a major part of attracting and keeping a user on site. For this
reason it IS the author who decides to what he/she wants people to see and
how they navigate around a site. I agree, frames that load other sites are
useless and it can much up your history......but some sites don't give a
rats arse about history and hope the user will simply read through using the
navigation items that they have put there themselves. It is also silly to
continually load up a navigational bar, which can be complex, simply because
a small amount of text changes.

The *whole* reason these lists exist is to assist in the formulation of new
standards. To say that "frames don't exist in XHTML 1.0" does not make it
law, it simply means that perhaps XHTML 1.0 needs to be revised already!

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:david.woolley@bts.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2001 11:26 PM
To: 'www-html@w3.org'
Subject: RE: FRAMEBORDER attribute?

> 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.

--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 16:52:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:56 UTC