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

[whatwg] framesets

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:36:38 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910132224110.6803@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Peter Brawley wrote:
> >
> > 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.

At this point I don't really understand what you want framesets for. Your 
requirements aren't met by framesets, <iframe>s have been demonstrated to 
work as well as framesets, and, well, framesets suck. I agree that there's 
lots of legacy content using framesets; that's why HTML5 defines how they 
should work (in more detail than any previous spec!). But that doesn't 
mean we should encourage them.

The only thing that is easier with framesets than otherwise appears to be 
resizing, which I agree is not well-handled currently. As noted before, 
though, that's an issue for more than just frames; we need a good solution 
for this in general, whether we have framesets or not. Furthermore, that's 
a styling issue, not an HTML issue.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 15:36:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:18 UTC