- From: Francis X. Speiser Jr. <webmaster@cablevision-boston.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:35:04 -0500
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <38849638.114BCFCF@ma.cablevision.com>
> The Reverend Sayeth: > > In other words, if I read the XHTML intentions properly, the idea is to replace a > specific type of framing (FRAMESET) with a more powerful and more generally useful > sort. I like that. > > This would be nice. Actually it would be great to be able to specify areas of the page which could be dynamic through some type of *ML, hopefully hide-able from the client's eyes if the author chooses, so that there could be some way to display alternating content, streaming media and other types of things. That would make my day. I work with a start-up right now and frames is the only way I could do that so that it would work, and regardless of standards you have to go with what works. I don't like to say that actually, and I suppose I must look like a pillaging pirate to this list, but something needs to be done. I guess this might be able to be combined with the suggestion of the gentleman with the <embed> recommendation, because they seemingly go hand in hand. I understand the separation of structure/transport and style, that makes sense, but hopefully we can propose some type of fix for the loss of functionality in the are athat is blurred between the two. I think that a dynamic attribute/tag, whatever you want to call it, where the source is drawn separately and can change without affecting the other source, may be the answer. I don't pretend to know the answer, I just pretend to know the question. I think that this line of thinking might be on the right track, though. Maybe a base document which reserves the area of another sheet with an include to the linked sheet, and the sheet can change according to a meta spec if needed or other "get" related request. That way the client can get a new document, the source is rendered and the original base document remains unaltered. Is anything like that in the works? Frames are limited anyway. There are a bunch of "better" ways to do it, but the worst thing we can do is junk the whole concept entirely in future revisions. -Frank- [P.S. Thanks to everyone who wrote me this weekend is support of my last post.]
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 11:33:57 UTC