<NOFRAMES> in HTML 4.0 draft

The working draft seems to be a little confused about the function of 
<NOFRAMES>. It is being given two distinct functions - as a block 
level element within <BODY> and as an element within a <FRAMESET>. 

The examples given for this element show it being used as a block 
level element which causes its content to be hidden when displayed 
within a frame. This is clearly a useful facility. 

However, the examples also show a document with a <FRAMESET> followed 
by a <BODY>, and it is stated at the start of the frames page that 

> A document with frames has a HEAD, a FRAMESET, and an optional BODY.

In fact this is not allowed by the DTD - see the definition of the 
HTML element. The description of the BODY element more accurately 
reflects the DTD:

> Documents that contain framesets replace the BODY element by the
> FRAMESET element.

In fact the only way I can see that the DTD provides to construct a 
frameset document with non-frames alternate content is to nest <BODY> 
within <NOFRAMES> within <FRAMESET>. 

This strikes me as clumsy and illogical. I think it is what was
originally suggested by Netscape, and so perhaps should be
permissible, but it should not be the only way to do it. I would
like to see the DTD amended to allow both <FRAMESET> and <BODY> to
be present, with the understanding that frames-capable agents would
not then display the <BODY> content. The usage of <NOFRAMES> within 
<FRAMESET> seems to be a conceptual contradiction and could perhaps 
be deprecated.

-- 
Peter Thomson
OCEPC (that's Office of the Chief Executive and Policy Co-ordinator)
Wolverhampton Council, Civic Centre, Wolverhampton WV1 1SH, U.K.
EMail: Peter.Thomson@dial.pipex.com   http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk
Phone: (+44) 1902 314048              Fax: (+44) 1902 314030

The views expressed are personal and may not reflect those of 
Wolverhampton Council, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If you have any concerns about the inappropriate use of this 
account, please e-mail <101514.2147@compuserve.com>.

Received on Thursday, 11 September 1997 10:56:14 UTC