- From: John T. Whelan <whelan@physics.utah.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:15:40 -0600
- To: www-html@w3.org
Jukka Korpela wrote:
> > The
> > presenting document
> > should remain when links from the presented document are followed.
Braden McDaniel responded:
> This interpretation places the inclusion in a decidedly subordinate position
> to the host document. I'm not convinced that this is in keeping with the
> design goals of OBJECT. Consider:
>
> host.html:
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN">
> <HEAD>
> <TITLE>Host Document</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <OBJECT DATA="inclusion.html" TYPE="text/html" WIDTH="320"
> HEIGHT="240"><A HREF="http://www.w3.org">We're off to see the
> wizard!</A></OBJECT>
> </BODY>
>
> inclusion.html:
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN">
> <HEAD>
> <TITLE>Included Document</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <P><A HREF="http://www.w3.org">We're off to see the wizard!</A>
> </BODY>
>
> Is it reasonable that these links should behave totally differently?
Yes, for the same reason the links behave differently in
frameset.html:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Frameset//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Host Document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<FRAMESET>
<FRAME SRC="leftframe.html">
<FRAME SRC="inclusion.html">
</FRAMESET>
<NOFRAMES>
<BODY>
<P><A HREF="http://www.w3.org">We're off to see the wizard!</A>
</BODY>
</NOFRAMES>
</HTML>
Where inclusion.html is as before. The behaviors of the two
alternatives are not the same, since the frame-replacement behavior
cannot be achieved by browsers that see the non-frame option. IMHO,
the same should go for the HTML OBJECT.
John T. Whelan
whelan@iname.com
http://www.slack.net/~whelan/
Received on Thursday, 20 August 1998 17:15:19 UTC