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

[whatwg] framesets

From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:17:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4ACF9A61.8050401@artfulsoftware.com>
>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

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