- From: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@math.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:18:35 -0800 (PST)
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
> I'm no friend of frames, quite the opposite, but it is
> illogical and a waste of resources to load the same stuff
> again and again. If just a certain part of a page is to change,
> it is reasonable to keep all other parts on the screen, instead of
> throwing them out and then reload and redisplay them in exactly
> the same way.
If you are concerned about caching parts of pages, then client-side
includes is the way to go.
However, it seems the idea of client-side includes may have been rejected
in order to keep HTML simple. In this case it seems equally reasonable to
reject frames in order to keep HTML simple.
--
Russell O'Connor
<http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~roconnor/>
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 17:18:36 UTC