- From: Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.phone.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:01:55 PST
- To: www-html@w3.org
> > > That was my idea when I first saw frames. They are really a very > > > different "document type" than your typical HTML document. This is why > > Oh yes indeed! This is a beautiful suggestion, but it might need some > > thought: > Yes, I also found this a very intriguing thought! But there must still be > specified what <BODY> stuff can exist in a framedoc for use by non-frame > browsers... No you don't. All you need is for browsers that accept Frames to add "text/frameset" to their Accept: headers (or whatever the equivalent for HTTP/1.1 is), and servers (or CGI scripts) that are bright enough to do that trivial level of content negotiation. This was pointed out when NetScape first proposed Frames to the HTML-WG, before the first public release of any browser that supported frames. The technology to do this kind of thing existed in several servers that were available at the time - just not in Netscapes. So we got stuck with the pile of elephant droppings that the W3C is currently trying to clean up. <mike
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 1997 00:08:15 UTC