<!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">
Aryeh,<br>
<br>
>I don't see why that's beneficial. <br>
<br>
It's not your brief to decide what's beneficial for a client. <br>
<br>
>It conflicts with expected<br>
>behavior. <br>
<br>
It does not conflict with what these users expect.<br>
<br>
> If you follow a link and then click "back", your<br>
>link-following should be undone. You shouldn't be taken to a totally<br>
>different page that you left half an hour ago.<br>
<br>
You are arguing for imposing one way of doing things. Ugh.<br>
<br>
>That's not how the W3C or the WHATWG or any standards bodies
operate.<br>
>If you want a feature in HTML5, you have to argue that it would help<br>
>the web to support it, not just that some authors want it.<br>
<br>
Framesets are part of the current HTML standard and should remain.<br>
<br>
PB<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7c2a12e20910091119j2e527fc7x3e50e668342a92a8@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Peter Brawley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pb@artfulsoftware.com"><pb@artfulsoftware.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It suggests no such thing. Your "suggestion", applied to surgery, would be
that primum non nocere implies surgery should never remove hurt or remove
useful tissue. The inference is overinclusive, to put it mildly. W3C's job
is to enable, not function like a commissariat.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The W3C's and WHATWG's jobs are to make standards that promote the
overall health of the web. This isn't always compatible with allowing
all authors to do everything they want. To take a more clear-cut
example, a lot of authors would like to be able to stop users from
downloading videos. <video> deliberately doesn't try to support this
use-case, because it's viewed as harmful. So those authors will have
to hack up solutions using Flash or JavaScript or whatever, or else
give up and allow it.
Of course, no one actually has to follow the standards. You can still
use frames. Your page just won't validate. If you think the W3C and
WHATWG are commissariats, this shouldn't worry you, since all it says
is your page doesn't follow what the W3C and/or WHATWG say.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">These are not external links. You want these pages to make each item
externally linkable. The client does not. The client wins this debate hands
down.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That's not how the W3C or the WHATWG or any standards bodies operate.
If you want a feature in HTML5, you have to argue that it would help
the web to support it, not just that some authors want it. Your
current arguments are very unlikely to get the spec changed (although
I don't have any say in that).
Users of a site using frames will have a worse experience, because
features like link-sharing and bookmarking won't work. You've said
that you would *like* these features not to work. Why, exactly? This
kind of degradation needs to be justified.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Already explained. So that a user may enter and exit the frameset as one page
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't see why that's beneficial. It conflicts with expected
behavior. If you follow a link and then click "back", your
link-following should be undone. You shouldn't be taken to a totally
different page that you left half an hour ago.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Thomas Broyer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:t.broyer@gmail.com"><t.broyer@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present
this as an argument for frameset or against their removal
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't see how iframes would allow you to deliberately mess up
navigation in the same way as frames do. AJAX would, and does, but
that's a lot harder for authors to implement, so asking for an easier
way seems legitimate.</pre>
<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>