- From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
- Date: 27 Jan 1997 22:40:40 +0000 (GMT)
- To: CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil
- Cc: www-html@www10.w3.org
Using the Corel Visual DTD thingie, I've been looking at I'm not familiar with that...do you have a name and details? 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> That's correct. I added the BODY, but it could be made optional. The concept of NOFRAMES _following_ FRAMESET is as Netscape originally defined it (inasmuch as they "defined" anything at all). The IE 3.0 DTD seems to go this way: <HTML> <FRAMESET> <FRAME> <NOFRAMES>(%body.content) </NOFRAMES> </FRAMESET> </HTML> This is utterly nonsensical, as the objective of NOFRAMES is for it to be a separate part of the document, outside any framing material. I think MS has made a glaring error here by grossly misunderstanding the nature of NOFRAMES. Either that, or they are just being deliberately obtuse and trying to be different from Netscape. 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.) The required course for HTML Pro is to allow you to choose, so I will vary the model to permit both ways...that much is easy :-) Thanks for finding this one, I missed their way of nesting it. ///Peter
Received on Monday, 27 January 1997 17:41:01 UTC