- From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:55:57 -0500
Aryeh, >I don't see why that's beneficial. It's not your brief to decide what's beneficial for a client. >It conflicts with expected >behavior. It does not conflict with what these users expect. > If you follow a link and then click "back", your >link-following should be undone. You shouldn't be taken to a totally >different page that you left half an hour ago. You are arguing for imposing one way of doing things. Ugh. >That's not how the W3C or the WHATWG or any standards bodies operate. >If you want a feature in HTML5, you have to argue that it would help >the web to support it, not just that some authors want it. Framesets are part of the current HTML standard and should remain. PB ----- Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > The W3C's and WHATWG's jobs are to make standards that promote the > overall health of the web. This isn't always compatible with allowing > all authors to do everything they want. To take a more clear-cut > example, a lot of authors would like to be able to stop users from > downloading videos. <video> deliberately doesn't try to support this > use-case, because it's viewed as harmful. So those authors will have > to hack up solutions using Flash or JavaScript or whatever, or else > give up and allow it. > > Of course, no one actually has to follow the standards. You can still > use frames. Your page just won't validate. If you think the W3C and > WHATWG are commissariats, this shouldn't worry you, since all it says > is your page doesn't follow what the W3C and/or WHATWG say. > > >> 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. >> > > That's not how the W3C or the WHATWG or any standards bodies operate. > If you want a feature in HTML5, you have to argue that it would help > the web to support it, not just that some authors want it. Your > current arguments are very unlikely to get the spec changed (although > I don't have any say in that). > > Users of a site using frames will have a worse experience, because > features like link-sharing and bookmarking won't work. You've said > that you would *like* these features not to work. Why, exactly? This > kind of degradation needs to be justified. > > >> Already explained. So that a user may enter and exit the frameset as one page >> > > I don't see why that's beneficial. It conflicts with expected > behavior. If you follow a link and then click "back", your > link-following should be undone. You shouldn't be taken to a totally > different page that you left half an hour ago. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present >> this as an argument for frameset or against their removal >> > > I don't see how iframes would allow you to deliberately mess up > navigation in the same way as frames do. AJAX would, and does, but > that's a lot harder for authors to implement, so asking for an easier > way seems legitimate. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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/cf168eee/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 11:55:57 UTC