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

RE: Extended URL for [I]Frames (revived)

From: Mjumbe Ukweli <mjumbewu@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:48:03 -0400
To: david.woolley@bts.co.uk, www-html@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <F134qFJ3sl3xbYiMCIq0000c279@hotmail.com>
>From: Dave  J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:36:37 +0100
>
>	...The HTML 4.0 position is that they are
>	a stop gap for style sheets.  This is not news:  it's implicit
>	in the HTML 4.0 specification from December 1997 and probably
>	was public information before that.
>
>	ISO HTML does not include frames.
>

i don't use <frameset>; i can see the advantages of CSS over them.  and i 
certainly don't use <layer>s.  i only use <iframe>s when i want want to have 
certain content that is the same on every page on my site (and i prefer not 
to use asp or php or cgi just to generate html pages).  i don't see 
<iframe>s as a "stop gap for style sheets" at all.    from what i understand 
inserting a html document with <object> is exactly the same as doing so with 
<iframe> except <object>s can't be targeted.

i'd love to use only ISO HTML and the strict DTD;  i'm an advocate of strict 
adherance to standards, but only if the standaards provide sufficient 
capabilities.  i think not being able to be targeted is a big drawback of 
<object>s and that, even if URIs are not extended, ways of linking to 
dynamic content should be explored and, as the XLink spec says, "make 
hyperlinking more scalable and flexible."

>	As far as I can tell, XHTML 1.1 (proposed reccommendation) doesn't
>	include the frames module from modularized HTML and is based on
>	HTML 4.01 strict, not on the transitional version.  See
>	<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html#s_doctype> for supported
>	elements.
>
>	The intention of HTML 4 was that people would be using only the
>	strict version now, and this does not support frames.

i really wouldn't have a problem if X/HTML got rid of frames altogether in 
favor of <object> as long as XLink (or some other technology, but XLink 
seems like the most appropriate one) allows object data to be able to be 
changed on a page without resorting to scripting.

>	One of the basic reasons is that they are incompatible with the
>	concept of a web because of the amount of state that needs to be
>	recreated by any link to them.  Even if you extended xlink to
>	allow the complete state to be recovered, including scripting
>variables,
>	the result would, essentially, be impossible to use in
>non-electronic
>	media (e.g. print, or broadcast speech radio)...
>

...i don't agree.  there's always stylesheets.


                                                  &#8226; mjumbe &#8226;

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 13:48:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:48 GMT