- From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:33:12 -0500
Boris, > use cases that the W3C wants to discourage ... That W3C mindset promotes no greater good; it just imposes an idea of what use cases should and shouldn't specify. Might as wellwrite popuo removal into HTML5. > The use cases can still be addressed with <iframe> and a bit of pain if resizing is desired, as far as I can tell. I quoted Andrew Fedoniouk (http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010186.html), "There are use cases when frames are good. As an example: online (and offline) help systems ... In such cases they provide level of usability higher than any other method of presenting content of such type." I've not seen a counterexample. Have you? >So this is all about assuming that the bit of pain will be enough of an inconvenience >for authors that they will either address the use case in some way not involving iframes >at all (and which presumably has a lower pain threshild; what is this way?) As above, no-one seems able to point to a non-frameset solution. >or not address >the use case at all (unlikely, since they're being paid to address it). IMO money has no place in this discussion. > Since UAs must continue supporting framesets anyway, the reasoning behind removing them seems somewhat weak to me. Yes. PB ----- Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 10/9/09 2:55 PM, Peter Brawley wrote: >> Framesets are part of the current HTML standard and should remain. > > This isn't really a convincing argument. There are various other > things that are part of HTML 4.01 that are worth removing and have > been removed. > > That said, I'm not sure why there's a worry about what's in the > standard given the > http://www.artfulsoftware.com/infotree/mysqlquerytree.php example > (which doesn't actually validate per the HTML 4.01 standard, since > it's missing a doctype). > > On a general note, though, the reasoning behind removing framesets > seems to be that they make it very easy to address specific authoring > use cases that the W3C wants to discourage, right? The use cases can > still be addressed with <iframe> and a bit of pain if resizing is > desired, as far as I can tell. So this is all about assuming that the > bit of pain will be enough of an inconvenience for authors that they > will either address the use case in some way not involving iframes at > all (and which presumably has a lower pain threshild; what is this > way?) or not address the use case at all (unlikely, since they're > being paid to address it). Since UAs must continue supporting > framesets anyway, the reasoning behind removing them seems somewhat > weak to me. > > -Boris > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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/b4a9309e/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 13:33:12 UTC