[whatwg] framesets

[Peter Brawley]

Thomas,

 >Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present
 >this as an argument for frameset or against their removal (though,
 >actually, I think you didn't, and the discussion just wen this road

Right, the point is that the use case specifies tree navigation to be 
entirely independent of navigation to and from the page, that tree and 
detail subwindows be independently scrollable & resizable, and that tree 
nodes /not/ be externally linkable. The response that the client ought 
not to want this is, well, beyond W3C's brief.

 >you could just use iframes too to the same effect,
 >except frame resizing, that would need some additional scripting; did
 >I adequately describe your argument here?)

I've been looking, but I've not seen an adequate iframe implementation 
of this spec.

I'm arguing that framesets have been part of HTML4, developers used them 
in good faith, and removing them from HTML5 unfairly & arbitrarily 
imposes a Hobson's choice of keeping existing functionality while 
foregoing new HTML5 functionality, or re-architecting existing 
functionality in order to use new HTML5 functionality.

PB

-----


Thomas Broyer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote:
>   
>>>> A design goal of this use case is to isolate individual framed items from
>>>> URL back/forward/history.external linking. Analagous to watching a picture
>>>> show where selecting N pictures does not commit you to hitting the Back
>>>> button N times to get back out.
>>>>         
>>> Why shouldn't it?
>>>       
>> Because the use case demands otherwise.
>>
>>     
>>> It's how all other links work. Behavior should be consistent.
>>>       
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present
> this as an argument for frameset or against their removal (though,
> actually, I think you didn't, and the discussion just wen this road
> while the use case you were showing is that clicking on a link in any
> frame, that loads a new doc within this same frame doesn't have any
> side effect on the other frames; for instance, you do not "lose" your
> scroll position in the other frames, MSDN doesn't behave exactly the
> same here; though you could just use iframes too to the same effect,
> except frame resizing, that would need some additional scripting; did
> I adequately describe your argument here?)
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 10/09/09 08:10:00
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091009/3d6fde4d/attachment-0002.htm>