- From: Murray Macdonald <murray@mha.ca>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:27:45 -0800
- To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
Although I agree an alternative to frames would be nice and is required, I believe that frames compatability should be maintained as it is beneficial to JavaScript programmers and their existing code. Any alternative should consider not only the markup language, but also things that operate upon it. There is great value in remaining backwardly compatiblity. Why _must_ frames be eliminated? Were server side image maps eliminated by client side image maps? --Murray -----Original Message----- From: Nicolas Lesbats [mailto:nlesbats@etu.utc.fr] Sent: February 2, 2001 1:33 PM To: 'www-html@w3.org' Subject: RE: FRAMEBORDER attribute? On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David Higgins wrote: > 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! No, it means that W3C people spent a long, long time doing formal discussions about the future of this markup language. If they trash frames from XHTML 1.1 (frames do exist in XHTML 1.0), you shouldn't hope that you could have any influence on that because there are "good" reasons to do so. W3C allows people to discuss standards before they become recommandations, not to create them. If W3C decided to trash frames, never imagine you can change that. If authors use frames, then usual browsers will continue to implement them, and that's all. By the way, it is possible to avoid reload a page by using an OBJECT element combinating with CSS (presently it's not very well implemented so IFRAME can be used for training, although it's a deprecated element). Nicolas -- Nicolas Lesbats - nlesbats@etu.utc.fr 1 rue des Capucins, Appt. 39, 60200 Compiegne 03 44 20 81 01
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 18:25:37 UTC