- From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:43:03 -0800
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Using the Corel Visual DTD thingie, I've been looking at
frames, as I think frames might be useful on my web site.
I've noticed some inconsistancy.
This is the HTML Pro model of frames:
<HTML>
<FRAMESET>
<FRAME>
</FRAMESET>
<NOFRAMES>
<BODY> (%body.content)
</BODY>
</NOFRAMES>
</HTML>
Notice that <NOFRAMES> contains <BODY> and is at an equal
depth as <FRAMESET>
The IE 3.0 DTD seems to go this way:
<HTML>
<FRAMESET>
<FRAME>
<NOFRAMES>(%body.content)
</NOFRAMES>
</FRAMESET>
</HTML>
Notice that <NOFRAMES> is within <FRAMESET>, and <BODY>
is just gone.
In the cougar DTD, a comment says that "The frame tags
will probably be added once we have an agreed definition
for them."[1] Is this happening soon? The only thing I
see on the W3C's technical report page is the "Frame-based
layout via Style Sheets" report.
Furthermore, if one is trying to set an example for his
organization by writing validating web pages, should one
lean toward the MSIE model or the HTML Pro model? In
other words, what's the Right Thing (other than forget
about frames altogether.)
On an nearly-unrelated note, the Love and Rockets song
"<BODY> and <SOUL>" came on my CD player as I was writing this.
[1]
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Cougar/HTML.dtd
C h a r l e s P e y t o n T a y l o r ctaylor@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of
the Naval PostGraduate School
"Dreams are like water, colorless, and dangerous"
http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/%7ectaylor/
Received on Thursday, 23 January 1997 19:54:12 UTC