- From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:17:37 -0500
>So why *are* >frames banned, if you can easily replace them with iframes and get the >exact same lousy behavior? Because iframes also have less evil uses, >and frames don't, I guess? Designation of reasonable uses as "evil" is authoritarian nonsense. PB ----- Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote: > >> Right, the point is that the use case specifies tree navigation to be >> entirely independent of navigation to and from the page, that tree and >> detail subwindows be independently scrollable & resizable, and that tree >> nodes not be externally linkable. The response that the client ought not to >> want this is, well, beyond W3C's brief. >> > > This is actually the WHATWG list, not the W3C. But in any case, both > organizations think it's completely appropriate for them to pressure > authors to avoid bad features. I guess you can feel free to argue > that they shouldn't, but I don't think you'll convince them. > > >> I'm arguing that framesets have been part of HTML4, developers used them in >> good faith, and removing them from HTML5 unfairly & arbitrarily imposes a >> Hobson's choice of keeping existing functionality while foregoing new HTML5 >> functionality, or re-architecting existing functionality in order to use new >> HTML5 functionality. >> > > You aren't *forced*. You can make a document that uses both frames > and HTML5 features. It will work, it's just not valid HTML5. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote: > >> It's not your brief to decide what's beneficial for a client. >> > > As defined by who? For instance, the W3C's mission is "To lead the > World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and > guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the Web." > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> That includes prohibiting things it > considers harmful. > > >> You are arguing for imposing one way of doing things. Ugh. >> > > Well, yes. The WHATWG and W3C are standards bodies. Standards are, > by definition, things that impose one way of doing things. > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > >> I don't see how they wouldn't. Everything you can accomplish with >> <frameset> and <frame> you can do with <iframe> plus gobs of javascript to >> make the drag-resizing work (probably badly, unlike the UA-provided resizing >> for <frameset>), no? Oh, and more hacks to get the initial sizing right and >> such, of course... >> > > Ah, I didn't understand how navigation in iframes works. So why *are* > frames banned, if you can easily replace them with iframes and get the > exact same lousy behavior? Because iframes also have less evil uses, > and frames don't, I guess? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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/20091009/3e17dab4/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 13:17:37 UTC