- From: Peter Brawley <pb@artfulsoftware.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:56:21 -0500
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