Re: Frameset/Frame Specification Amendment (HTML+CSS)

On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:29 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> What's the value in expanding CSS's ability to style frames, though?
> We don't want to encourage their use

You don't, and a lot of other frames-haters don't, but I don't see  
that it should br the role of this WG to discourage the use of  
particular element of valid, non-deprecated HTML because of the design  
challenges associated with them. It is within our purview to see if  
there are reasonable ways to allow CSS styling of such elements in a  
way that is intuitive and predictable (in as much as we do with other  
replaced elements), instead of relying on the markup language only to  
do so.

> ...and
> don't want to damage legacy pages' use of frames (and so changing any
> aspects of how frames work,

There's no reason we would have to break legacy pages for these type  
of changes. What Axel and I submitted should be the start of the  
conversation, not the end of it.

> We *do* want frames to be specified in an interoperable way so that
> browsers can refer to *some* spec for reference,

The CSS specs claim to be useful for presentational styling of HTML  
elements, so it seems the most logical place to refer to how their  
look can be changed or influence, especially with regard to properties  
like border and margin and spacing that are normally associated with  
CSS. I don't see any reason to exclude frames from our spec. Certainly  
not because of a political need of some people to jump on a bandwagon  
of scolding anyone who is willing to deal with the weaknesses of  
frames in their Web designs.

Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 22:35:18 UTC