- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:00:03 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Using Frames is not intrinsically bad. It is perfectly possible to create
> a site which uses frames extensively, yet causes no accessibility
> problems. It requires the use of NOFRAMES to give access to the content
> pages.
It doesn't require the use of NOFRAMES if the UA is smart enough to
read the content of the FRAME elements.
When I look at the following markup, which is compliant with the
guideline for FRAMESET, I can't help but think this is bogus, because
of the duplicate information found in titles and NOFRAME anchors.
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
<FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
<FRAME title="Some neat contents" src="contents_of_frame1.html">
<FRAME title="A neat image" src="contents_of_frame2.gif">
</FRAMESET>
<FRAME title="Some other neat contents" src="contents_of_frame3.html">
<NOFRAMES>
<P>This frameset document contains:
<UL>
<LI><A href="contents_of_frame1.html">Some neat contents</A>
<LI><IMG src="contents_of_frame2.gif" alt="A neat image">
<LI><A href="contents_of_frame3.html">Some other neat contents</A>
</UL>
</NOFRAMES>
</FRAMESET>
</HTML>
To me, either one or the other is required, but not both.
Received on Friday, 8 January 1999 04:00:25 UTC