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

[whatwg] framesets

From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:56:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD5F4A5.2040204@artfulsoftware.com>
Rimantas,

 >Maybe there are not many sites because nobody wants this type of sites?

You think nobody wants Javadoc? Javadoc has been shipping with an 
read-only version of this use case for years.

The full use case is treeview database maintenance. Tree logic has been 
slow to mature in SQL, is non-trivial in HTML as we see, and is hard to 
generate from PHP/Ruby/whatever.

 >I hate this type of documentation sites personally.

Fine, you've no need for website maintenance of data-driven trees. 
That's not a rationale for excluding framesets from HTML5.

 > And to me this use case looks built around the chosen implementation,

Wrong. Frameset was chosen because it provides the most efficient 
available implementaiton.

 > while I prefers solutions built around solving the real need.

Which this is.

 >So you want HTML5 spec tailored for this particular case of yours?
 >Can I have <dancinghampsters> tag, please?

May I have rational responses please? This is not a request for a new 
feature. I want HTML5 to continue support for useful HTML.

 >Nobody forbids you from using previous versions of HTML.

Correct, but excluding frameset from HTML5 increases the likelihood that 
browsers will drop support for the feature.

PB

-----

Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
>> So it does not answer the question: if framesets are as you claim not needed
>> for the full spec, there should be lots of non-frameset sites which meet
>> this spec as efficiently as ours does.
>>     
>
> Maybe there are not many sites because nobody wants this type of sites?
> I hate this type of documentation sites personally.
> And to me this use case looks built around the chosen implementation,
> while I prefers solutions built around solving the real need.
>
>   
>> If that blocks a use case, by all means don't use a frameset for it. For
>> this use, the above poses no problem at all. And if CSS were actually as
>> efficient for this spec as framesets, surely some developers would have
>> taken advantage of that by now.
>>     
>
> Once again you assume that your spec is highly desired. Maybe it is not
> the case and so nobody bothered.
>
> <?>
>   
>> No need in this case.
>>     
> <?>
>   
>> Not an issue for this use.
>>     
>
> So you want HTML5 spec tailored for this particular case of yours?
> Can I have <dancinghampsters> tag, please?
>
>   
>> Here's an application for framesets which is valid on previous versions of
>> HTML,
>>     
>
> Nobody forbids you from using previous versions of HTML.
>
>   
>> meets a need, is more efficient than known implemented alternatives
>> for this use case,
>>     
>
> You have framed (pardon the pun) this use case this way and reject all
> other options. Once again?you can use HTML4.01 frameset document
> with HTML5 documents loaded to frames. This was suggested more
> than once.
>
>   
>> and does not suffer from any of the frameset deficiencies
>> you have listed.
>>     
>
> How so?
>
>   
>> Framesets remain useful, excluding them from HTML5
>> undermines support for those uses, and that weakens HTML5.
>>     
>
> I'd argue that it strengthens HTML5.
>
> Regards,
> Rimantas
> --
> http://rimantas.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.16/2435 - Release Date: 10/14/09 06:33:00
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091014/d2fc65e7/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 08:56:21 UTC

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