- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:21:05 -0500
- To: abigail@uk.fnx.com
- CC: www-html@w3.org
From: Abigail <abigail@uk.fnx.com> | > Shrug. You want complicated things, you get complicated implementation. At | > some point when using frames you *have* to specify the state of the | > frame's content. Since the content state is not intrinsic to the frames | > themselves, you have to use an extrinsic method to link to it. | | Could it be the awkwardness of addressing instances of frame states | is one of the reasons people say frames are kludgy? Personnally, I | very much would prefer that the whole concept of frames was thought | about first, (and redone), before accepting complicated kludges. --- Over-engineering of solutions has not been a common problem in the evolution of the Web... Consider that we still haven't handled a couple of key shortcomings of the whole URL model: the tying of a resource name to a specific host, (making it impossible (or kludgy) to migrate it elsewhere or to replicate it providing access only to author-provided TARGETs within a resource makes it impossible for an author to cite arbitrary places, tossing away centuries of standard citation practice It's hardly surprising that the first sketchy approach to presenting configurations of resources as logical entities would be under-engineered and would last forever... scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 1996 12:22:19 UTC