- From: John Whelan <whelan@itp.unibe.ch>
- Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 06:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
I could swear I replied to this post by Bertilo Wennergren a couple of weeks ago, but my message got lost in the ether. Here it goes again... > The transitional version is needed also for those who want to use > frames. The attribute "target" is not in the strict version. Frames > without any means of referring to them are pretty useless. So if > we ditch transitional we'll have to ditch the frameset DTD as well. Or produce a single DTD which includes what's in the Strict DTD plus the relevant frame-related elements and attributes. This will, however, require the W3C to make the distinction of whether 'iframe' was "deprecated" because it is related to frames, or because it should be replaced by the 'object' element, and in turn raise the issue of whether the 'name' attribute of the 'object' attribute should be used for targeting in that case. I can forsee the need to maintain a Transitional DTD at each level of (X)HTML, as more historical features are deprecated. E.g., 'font' would not appear in any DTD at the next level, but constructs currently included in the Strict DTD (e.g., the 'name' attribute for the 'a' element, or even the 'img' element--which may someday be deprecated in favor of 'object') would be relegated to a new Transitional DTD. John T. Whelan whelan@iname.com http://www.slack.net/~whelan/
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 1999 05:17:05 UTC