<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Boris,<br>
<br>
> use cases that the W3C wants to discourage ...<br>
<br>
That W3C mindset promotes no greater good; it just imposes an idea of
what use cases should and shouldn't specify. Might as wellwrite popuo
removal into HTML5.<br>
<br>
> The use cases can still be addressed with <iframe> and a bit
of pain if resizing is desired, as far as I can tell. <br>
<br>
I quoted Andrew Fedoniouk (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010186.html">http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010186.html</a>),
"There are use cases when frames are good. As an example: online (and
offline) help systems ... In such cases they provide level of
usability higher than any other method of presenting content of such
type."
<br>
<br>
I've not seen a counterexample. Have you?<br>
<br>
>So this is all about assuming that the bit of pain will be enough
of an inconvenience <br>
>for authors that they will either address the use case in some way
not involving iframes <br>
>at all (and which presumably has a lower pain threshild; what is
this way?) <br>
<br>
As above, no-one seems able to point to a non-frameset solution.<br>
<br>
>or not address <br>
>the use case at all (unlikely, since they're being paid to address
it). <br>
<br>
IMO money has no place in this discussion.<br>
<br>
> Since UAs must continue supporting framesets anyway, the reasoning
behind removing them seems somewhat weak to me.
<br>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
PB<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4ACF8B51.80507@mit.edu" type="cite">On 10/9/09
2:55 PM, Peter Brawley wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Framesets are part of the current HTML
standard and should remain.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This isn't really a convincing argument. There are various other
things that are part of HTML 4.01 that are worth removing and have been
removed.
<br>
<br>
That said, I'm not sure why there's a worry about what's in the
standard given the
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.artfulsoftware.com/infotree/mysqlquerytree.php">http://www.artfulsoftware.com/infotree/mysqlquerytree.php</a> example
(which doesn't actually validate per the HTML 4.01 standard, since it's
missing a doctype).
<br>
<br>
On a general note, though, the reasoning behind removing framesets
seems to be that they make it very easy to address specific authoring
use cases that the W3C wants to discourage, right? The use cases can
still be addressed with <iframe> and a bit of pain if resizing is
desired, as far as I can tell. So this is all about assuming that the
bit of pain will be enough of an inconvenience for authors that they
will either address the use case in some way not involving iframes at
all (and which presumably has a lower pain threshild; what is this
way?) or not address the use case at all (unlikely, since they're being
paid to address it). Since UAs must continue supporting framesets
anyway, the reasoning behind removing them seems somewhat weak to me.
<br>
<br>
-Boris<br>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a>
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 10/09/09 08:10:00
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>