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

[whatwg] framesets

From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:20:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD5438D.3090407@artfulsoftware.com>
Ian,

 > Your requirements aren't met by framesets

Eh? Our solution meets the requirement and uses framesets.

 > <iframe>s have been demonstrated to work as well as framesets

No-one's been able to point to a working non-frameset solution that 
meets this requirement.

 >, and, well, framesets suck.

Unargued, subjective.

 >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!).

?! According to 
http://www.html5code.com/index.php/html-5-tags/html-5-frameset-tag/, 
"The frameset tag is not supported in HTML 5."

 >The only thing that is easier with framesets than otherwise appears to be
 >resizing, which I agree is not well-handled currently.

Unsubstantiated claim absent a working example of the spec implemented 
without framesets.

 >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.

For those who have to write or generate HTML, that's a distinction 
without a difference.

PB

-----

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.13/2432 - Release Date: 10/13/09 06:35:00
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091013/2fdac703/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 20:20:45 UTC

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