- From: Tim Bagot <tim@oakley.keble.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:02:42 -0500 (EST)
- To: HTML mailing list <www-html@w3.org>
- cc: Ben Haller <bhaller@apple.com>
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Ben Haller wrote: > I'm trying to figure out a few things about the frames spec as it > stands now (i.e. 4.0). > Please reply to me directly as well as to the list -- I just > subscribed a few minutes ago & have little confidence that I'll get > replies sent only to the list, due to lag. > > First of all, am I correct in thinking that with NOFRAMES, there > is no way to specify those attributes that are normally on the BODY > tag, such as text color, background, etc.? Why aren't these also > attributes on NOFRAMES -- why doesn't it just act identically to > BODY? For that matter, why do they even have NOFRAMES -- why not > just use a BODY, which frames-aware apps would know not to display > because a FRAMESET was found first, and which frames-unaware apps > would treat as the body, as intended? > Secondly, am I correct in thinking that BODY used to be required > within NOFRAMES, where now it is prohibited, and that FRAMESET is now > legal within FRAMESET, where you used to have to used a FRAME that > had an url for a different document with the nested FRAMESET in it? > Perhaps I shouldn't even worry about such things, but I'd like to > know how this stuff has evolved, to know what things I'm likely to > find out there on the Web which may be common despite being > non-spec-compliant. You are right about NOFRAMES not having those attributes. I am not sure why it was decided to give it the same content model as BODY (hence also preventing it from containing a BODY element) without giving it the same attributes. HTML 4.0 is the first W3C standard to include frames; it may be that the things you mention come from proprietary versions of HTML, which are likely to have slightly different implementations of frames, since they were to a certain extent developed separately. Nested FRAMESETs shouldn't be a problem, since they are backwards-compatible and fairly widely supported. The confusion over the BODY element may cause more difficulties. I also cannot see the reasoning behind putting NOFRAMES inside FRAMESETs, since it applies to the whole document, not just individual framesets. Tim Bagot
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 1998 05:13:52 UTC