W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2009

[whatwg] framesets

From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:47:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4ACF7746.601@artfulsoftware.com>
> > Oy, from the fact that users find web page links useful, it does not 
> follow
> > that all identified content ought to be so linked.
 >It suggests that not linking is a serious drawback.

It suggests no such thing. Your "suggestion", applied to surgery, would 
be that /primum non nocere/ implies surgery should never remove hurt or 
remove useful tissue. The inference is overinclusive, to put it mildly. 
W3C's job is to enable, not function like a commissariat.
> > A design goal of this use case is to isolate individual framed items from
> > URL back/forward/history.external linking. Analagous to watching a 
> picture
> > show where selecting N pictures does not commit you to hitting the Back
> > button N times to get back out.
 >Why shouldn't it?

Because the use case demands otherwise.

 > It's how all other links work. Behavior should be consistent.

/These are not external links./ You want these pages to make each item 
externally linkable. /The client does not/. The client wins this debate 
hands down.
> > More significantly, each item may have its own permission setting.
 >Why are frames useful for that? You can just display a permissions
 >error if the user is unauthorized.

The use case specifies otherwise.
> > This use case needs to isolate items within the page from
> > back/forward/history and external links.
 >Why? That seems to detract from the utility here, not add to it.

Already explained. So that a user may enter and exit the frameset as one 
page

PB

-----

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> 
> wrote:
>> Oy, from the fact that users find web page links useful, it does not 
>> follow
>> that all identified content ought to be so linked.
>
> It suggests that not linking is a serious drawback.
>
>> A design goal of this use case is to isolate individual framed items from
>> URL back/forward/history.external linking. Analagous to watching a 
>> picture
>> show where selecting N pictures does not commit you to hitting the Back
>> button N times to get back out.
>
> Why shouldn't it? It's how all other links work. Behavior should be
> consistent.
>
>> More significantly, each item may have its
>> own permission setting.
>
> Why are frames useful for that? You can just display a permissions
> error if the user is unauthorized.
>
>> This use case needs to isolate items within the page from
>> back/forward/history and external links.
>
> Why? That seems to detract from the utility here, not add to it.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 
> 10/09/09 08:10:00
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091009/a138fa33/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 10:47:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:17 UTC