Re: Frames - does anyone like them?

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Sunil Mishra wrote:

> Also, thinking about content when you are dealing with one page at a time
> is hard enough. With frames, you have to start thinking about the
> relationship each *possible* pair of pages can have to each other. It's no
> longer a simple graph structure you are looking at. This is not of as much
> concern now as it will be in the future, when we begin to see more
> intelligent search mechanisms on the web. I personally would much rather
> see a self contained document, with or without frames, in the sense that
> every relevant document LINKed to it. BANNER was a start, but nowhere
> nearly enough to capture the details one would wish for.

As I have pointed out before, what I found was the main strength of BANNER
was that the banner was included in the same HTML document as the rest of
the information. Using this model, bookmarking remains the same, navigation
is easy and the frames don't get messed up so that you get irrelevant
documents simultaneously on your screen.

The way I think this would best be implemented is using multiple BODY
elements in combination with stylesheets, who already seperate the canvas
(referred to using the HTML element) and the actual document (referred to
using the BODY element). Multiple bodies could be given float atributes and
scrolling/non-scrolling attributes as per CSS1, so you could even easily
have non-rectangular frames. I.e a box in the top right corner could be used
for navigational purposes while the rest of the screen could be used for the
actual information.

Hey, I like this idea. Would anyone be interested if I actual wrote out a
proposal for this (it needs a lot of refining of course...)

= Stephanos Piperoglou = = =
  Four lines in a .sig can't say enough about why you should visit my page!
"I want peace on earth and good will toward man"
"We're the United States Government, we don't do that sort of thing!"
                                    [ from the film "Sneakers" ]

                                                       ...oof porothika! (tm)

Received on Wednesday, 21 August 1996 12:44:07 UTC