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

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

From: Andrew MacKinnon <andrew_mackinnon_2000@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:30:34 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0191EA.D4C79F83@yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Dave J Woolley wrote:
>> From: Nathan Pearce [SMTP:nathan.pearce@blueU.com]
>> 
>> If frames are being removed, is it best to stick to using layers? Or is
>> there a nice alternative, that we can use now?
>> 
>[DJW:] Layers have never existed; they are a Netscape
>proprietory feature; I don't think they are even supported
>by Netscape 6.  The intention, ever since the 
>publication of the HTML 4.0 specification has been that
>you should use elements positioned using style sheets. 
>
>Frames do exist in the modularized HTML specification
>and those browsers which support them now are likely to
>coninue to do so for the foreseeable future.

It's probably that W3C is trying to phase frames out in favor of CSS
positioning. Also, "Layers" have existed since HTML 4.0, but not in the
form of the proprietary Netscape <layer> tag, but of the <div> tag in
combination with CSS positioning and possibly ECMAScript using the
Document Object Mode. The W3C wants the <div> tag to be used for layout
instead of the proprietary Netscape <layer> (doesn't work on Internet
Explorer...) or the table.

--
Andrew MacKinnon
andrew_mackinnon_2000@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_mackinnon_2000/

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 16:30:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:09 GMT