Re: A successor to framesets

Hi Sean,

Have you tried watching the video with Subtitles turned on?

I apologize for the confusion on my part, but I assure you it was not an 
impulsive response to a subject line. I sincerely thought that the 
YouTube submission was a prank.

Please resubmit your proposal in a more accessible format and I'll be 
more than happy to review it and give feedback if I can.

Respectfully,

Eihab

On 4/1/2015 10:44 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
> Hi Eihab,
>
> Are you saying that if I had posted this on, say, the 2nd April then
> you would have given it proper consideration instead of just
> responding to the Subject: line?
>
> regards,
> Sean
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Eihab Ibrahim <eihabibrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> It's a bit too early in the US for April fools' jokes, and I do not think this is an appropriate platform for it.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Eihab
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Sean Hogan <shogun70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> HTML framesets were the original single-page-application.
>>
>> Despite the flaws (mostly not being content-first), at least servers
>> were emitting reasonably simple HTML including real hyperlinks and
>> forms.
>>
>> What would framesets be like if we designed them today?
>>
>> In the linked video I make the case for a successor to framesets.
>> It is 25 minutes but that is unavoidable.
>>
>>     https://youtu.be/qVdAc8_ppao
>>
>> The first half illustrates *why* this is important / better than alternatives,
>> with actual demonstrations (which you should try for yourself to
>> ensure I'm not cheating).
>>
>> The second half provides some insight into how I've approached this,
>> again with demonstrations.
>>
>> I'll continue later with details of the differences / enhancements
>> required to make the frameset concept live up to today's expectations.
>>
>> regards,
>> Sean
>>
>>
> .
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:29:40 UTC