W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Frame-based layout via Style Sheets

From: Eric Costello <eric@schwa.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:04:15 -0400
Message-ID: <78891769606.20020411220415@schwa.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday, April 11, 2002, 7:05:25 PM, Håkon wrote:

>  >http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-layout.html
>  > 
>  > I assume it never made it past the working draft stage, and I'm
>  > interested in why.

> It's a good question. The answer will vary depending on whom you ask.
> My answer is that the main implementors of CSS at the time (Microsoft
> and Netscape) both wanted a positioning scheme which also worked with
> JavaScript to create animations. The result was:

>   http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-positioning-970131

> which was later incorporated into CSS2. HTML + JavaScript + CSS
> Positioning was subsequently marketed as "Dynamic HTML" by the two.

Thanks Håkon. I am familiar with that story, but I did not realize
that CSS-P was chosen in place of other layout systems.

Why are they exclusive? The frame-based layout does not have a very
extensive syntax or vocabulary, especially if the ability to target
frames with links is eliminated (it seems expendable to me).

And as far as layout goes, it's really not describing anything more
than what tables already provide, so it seems it would be relatively
easy for browser makers to implement CSS frames with their table
layout engines (of course, you're better equipped than I to speak to
that matter). They're going to have to do that with table display
properties anyway, and the frame syntax is so much more sensible.

Is there no one left in the W3C trumpeting the value the layout grids?

Eric
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 22:04:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:14 GMT