- From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:51:07 -0500
Ian Thanks for your interest in the issue. >>> >>> > > > 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?> > >>> > > I believe Andrew's statement to be incorrect.> >>> > If your belief is correct, there must be sites which accomplish this >>> > spec with tables + iframes (for example). No contributor has managed to >>> > point to them. >>> >I don't know if there are pages that do this (and I sure hope none are >using <table> for it!), but the lack of an existence proof is not proof of >the lack of existence. Of course. The point is if no-one can point to a working iframes solution, ie, to an instance of them actually being preferred, the claim that iframes provide a preferable alternative is simply not credible, to put it mildly. >However, in the interests of moving this on, I made an example here in >about ten minutes: >http://damowmow.com/playground/demos/framesets-with-iframes/001.html Yes, iframes can implement some features of the spec. See above. PB ----- Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Peter Brawley wrote: > >>>> 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? >>>> >>> I believe Andrew's statement to be incorrect. >>> >> If your belief is correct, there must be sites which accomplish this >> spec with tables + iframes (for example). No contributor has managed to >> point to them. >> > > I don't know if there are pages that do this (and I sure hope none are > using <table> for it!), but the lack of an existence proof is not proof of > the lack of existence. > > However, in the interests of moving this on, I made an example here in > about ten minutes: > > http://damowmow.com/playground/demos/framesets-with-iframes/001.html > > It doesn't do the resizing, and I didn't test it in IE so it probably > needs some hacks to work around some bugs there, but it works fine for me > in Safari. Resizing in a single page in general is a solved problem, you > can probably slap a little JS on there and it would be supported too. (It > should be easier to do, mind you; that's a CSS problem though, and affects > more than just frames.) > > > >>> search engines can't index into them (search is a critical part of help >>> systems), pages in them can't easily be bookmarked >>> >> A DB row is a tree node and it must be possible to block bookmarking of such >> rows. >> > > Framesets don't block bookmarking of such rows. They just make it harder. > (A user can always right-click a frame and get the URL to bookmark it.) > > AJAX can block bookmarking of such rows, though. > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Peter Brawley wrote: > >> There are good database reasons to block bookmarks to table rows, so >> that must be doable. >> > > That's fair enough, but framesets don't provide that possibility. They > only make bookmarking significantly harder; they don't make it impossible. > Indeed there have been a number of browsers over the years who have > implemented various hacks whereby the user can bookmark the entire state > of a frameset. The usability of such hacks has been poor, but the point is > that if the requirement is that bookmarking not work, frames don't > actually fulfill that need. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.11/2430 - Release Date: 10/12/09 04:01:00 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091013/c8f97080/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 08:51:07 UTC