- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:53:49 -0800
- To: "Rev. Bob the Twice-Ordained" <rev-bob@gotc.com>, "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
>From: rev-bob@gotc.com >Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2000, 8:32 AM > >> I personally, in my own personal opinion, believe that the standards body >> is making a mistake by trading functionality for standardization. > > What functionality has been traded away? Granted, in XHTML 1.1 you lose > frames - which you can simulate with CSS and XLink if you really need 'em. No you cannot. This is a misconception that needs to be cleared up so that it stops propagating. 1. XLink is NOT a recommendation yet. Therefore it is inappropriate to suggest it as an alternative mechanism in any other proposal which is supposed to become a recommendation. 2. CSS does not yet specify all the capabilities for presenting FRAMEs that HTML allowed. Yes, CSS-2 includes overflow:scroll and position:fixed, but it does not include anything to support the NORESIZE attribute for example. For that you have to wait for the User Interface Module of CSS-3 which will be a combination of the User Interface section in CSS-2 and the additions proposed by the CSS-3 UI working draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-userint#resizer Tantek
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 11:54:10 UTC