- From: Mjumbe Ukweli <mjumbewu@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:48:03 -0400
- To: david.woolley@bts.co.uk, www-html@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
>From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk> >Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:36:37 +0100 > > ...The HTML 4.0 position is that they are > a stop gap for style sheets. This is not news: it's implicit > in the HTML 4.0 specification from December 1997 and probably > was public information before that. > > ISO HTML does not include frames. > i don't use <frameset>; i can see the advantages of CSS over them. and i certainly don't use <layer>s. i only use <iframe>s when i want want to have certain content that is the same on every page on my site (and i prefer not to use asp or php or cgi just to generate html pages). i don't see <iframe>s as a "stop gap for style sheets" at all. from what i understand inserting a html document with <object> is exactly the same as doing so with <iframe> except <object>s can't be targeted. i'd love to use only ISO HTML and the strict DTD; i'm an advocate of strict adherance to standards, but only if the standaards provide sufficient capabilities. i think not being able to be targeted is a big drawback of <object>s and that, even if URIs are not extended, ways of linking to dynamic content should be explored and, as the XLink spec says, "make hyperlinking more scalable and flexible." > As far as I can tell, XHTML 1.1 (proposed reccommendation) doesn't > include the frames module from modularized HTML and is based on > HTML 4.01 strict, not on the transitional version. See > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html#s_doctype> for supported > elements. > > The intention of HTML 4 was that people would be using only the > strict version now, and this does not support frames. i really wouldn't have a problem if X/HTML got rid of frames altogether in favor of <object> as long as XLink (or some other technology, but XLink seems like the most appropriate one) allows object data to be able to be changed on a page without resorting to scripting. > One of the basic reasons is that they are incompatible with the > concept of a web because of the amount of state that needs to be > recreated by any link to them. Even if you extended xlink to > allow the complete state to be recovered, including scripting >variables, > the result would, essentially, be impossible to use in >non-electronic > media (e.g. print, or broadcast speech radio)... > ...i don't agree. there's always stylesheets. • mjumbe • _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 13:48:35 UTC